Offshore wind in the USA.

[turbguy + 1,543]

Offshore Wind is becoming a BIG attraction.

https://www.powermag.com/report-touts-huge-potential-of-offshore-wind/

[markslawson + 1,057]

turbguy, maaaate, this is a report.. so what? One of the reasons they have offshore wind projects is because they have run out of suitable sites onshore.. this seems to be basically what's happened in Europe, where land is more expensive and built up. If the turbines are stuck often far out to sea then residents have fewer reasons to complain about them, but its still a very expensive way to get free energy. Just think that the turbines have to be built to withstand ocean storms and waves, and then serviced. About all that can be said for offshore wind is that the turbines, at least initially, have a higher capacity factor than onshore.

Australia doesn't have offshore wind for the simple reason that they haven't run out of onshore sites..

Now go back and look at the general tone of the report.. mate, its obvious propaganda, not journalism in any sense..    

[turbguy + 1,543]

56 minutes ago, markslawson said:

turbguy, maaaate, this is a report.. so what? One of the reasons they have offshore wind projects is because they have run out of suitable sites onshore.. this seems to be basically what's happened in Europe, where land is more expensive and built up. If the turbines are stuck often far out to sea then residents have fewer reasons to complain about them, but its still a very expensive way to get free energy. Just think that the turbines have to be built to withstand ocean storms and waves, and then serviced. About all that can be said for offshore wind is that the turbines, at least initially, have a higher capacity factor than onshore.

Australia doesn't have offshore wind for the simple reason that they haven't run out of onshore sites..

Now go back and look at the general tone of the report.. mate, its obvious propaganda, not journalism in any sense..    

The US hasn't even started utilizing "cheap land space".  Wait until they start popping up in the Great Lakes.

[Refman + 207]

The US might actually benefit by being some what late to the offshore party, as they can jump straight to the new mega turbines

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, Refman said:

The US might actually benefit by being some what late to the offshore party, as they can jump straight to the new mega turbines

...and offshore rig builders should benefit, as well.

Unfortunately, from what I see, those big machines use a LOT of REE's.

[markslawson + 1,057]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

The US hasn't even started utilizing "cheap land space".  Wait until they start popping up in the Great Lakes.

My understanding is that the Great Lakes are worse than the ocean for storms, in part because the waves are unpredictable. There's no way that offshore wind in the Great Lakes is cheap or easy. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

3 hours ago, Refman said:

The US might actually benefit by being some what late to the offshore party, as they can jump straight to the new mega turbines

Actually the mega turbines are shaping up to be a mega disaster see this thread posters were trying to claim that they couldn't see the higher failure rates in the material issued by the wind farms themselves.. but a closer reading of Prof Hughes indicates that the farms were simply not recording results from turbines that failed..  

[notsonice + 1,255]

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

My understanding is that the Great Lakes are worse than the ocean for storms, in part because the waves are unpredictable. There's no way that offshore wind in the Great Lakes is cheap or easy. 

The real threat on the Great lakes is surface  ice from freeze overs...... nothing is spared from ice movements or crushing ice flows on the Great Lakes

 

Has Lake Michigan ever completely frozen over?

It has not, but it’s come close in some of the Midwest’s most severe winters. Wave action and wind, combined with the vast reservoir of heat contained in the lake, have so far prevented complete freezing. Ice formation on Lake Michigan usually begins in January and reaches its peak in late February or early March. Data provided by Environment Canada and the U.S. National Weather Service indicate that Lake Michigan ice coverage reached 90 to 95 percent in the winters of 1903-04, 1976-77, 1978-79 and 2013-14. Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie have frozen over in a few harsh winters since 1900, but Michigan and Ontario have never attained complete ice coverage. The long-term annual Great Lakes ice coverage- Erie 68%, Huron 50%, Superior 49%, Michigan 28%, and Ontario 20%.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Turbines on the Great Lakes? Who ever came up with that thought needs to go back to educational basics 101......

People’s Homes Near Lake Erie Get Covered In Thick Ice, They Say It Looks Cool But It’s A Nightmare To Live In

https://www.boredpanda.com/frozen-houses-lake-effect-ice-storm-lake-erie/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/22/2021 at 5:59 PM, markslawson said:

turbguy, maaaate, this is a report.. so what? One of the reasons they have offshore wind projects is because they have run out of suitable sites onshore.. this seems to be basically what's happened in Europe, where land is more expensive and built up. If the turbines are stuck often far out to sea then residents have fewer reasons to complain about them, but its still a very expensive way to get free energy. Just think that the turbines have to be built to withstand ocean storms and waves, and then serviced. About all that can be said for offshore wind is that the turbines, at least initially, have a higher capacity factor than onshore.

Australia doesn't have offshore wind for the simple reason that they haven't run out of onshore sites..

Now go back and look at the general tone of the report.. mate, its obvious propaganda, not journalism in any sense..    

How would you compare salt to fresh water turbines. The Great Lakes have fierce winds and time but the advantage of fresh water and large enough to place turbines out of site. 

Do you see any technology for wave power working?

[markslawson + 1,057]

All I can say for fresh versus salt water for wind turbines is that it all depends. As noted turbines are only placed offshore, fresh or salt, because there is no realistic place for them onshore.. the great lakes is one of the few places where they would be placed in lakes - that is, fresh water - rather than out to sea as all the area around the lakes is built up or too valuable or subject to protest by residents.. Offshore wind has a higher capacity factor - out in trade winds and the like - but I don't think that would work in the great lakes. Probably maintenance costs would be similar but that's all just guess work. I don't think there's been any study.

As for wave energy, it's acknowledged to be one of the most expensive of the renewables. The trouble is that wave power stations cost big bucks for not much capacity. Also, although there are loads of empty beaches they tend to be a long way from consumers and always there's someone who objects to having a big power station on a pristine beach. I've seen proposals for drastically reducing costs with lots of little wave power generators and the like but nothing has come of any of this to date.     

[Piotr Berman + 82]

Apparently, bats have more problems with onshore wind turbines than birds.  I guess that few bats fly over the ocean.  Additionally, winds are more reliable in many offshore locations.

That said, for the next few decades, nuclear power can be more economical.

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

54 minutes ago, Piotr Berman said:

That said, for the next few decades, nuclear power can be more economical.

If the technology for nuclear power is allowed to advance, it will not only remain more cost effective than wind, but the difference will grow. 

Secondly, there's a hard cap for the usefulness of these turbines. Efficiency will max out, effectively capping capacity factor, and at that point the only thing to do is build larger turbines or shrink the cost. The cost has a lower limit too.

Just because the world is going in the direction of wind and solar, doesn't mean that they should, or that they picked the best option. Eastern Europe seems to understand...

https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/the-competition-is-on-for-eastern-europes-nuclear-power-market/

Nuclear momentum

It’s not as if several EU members states such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania have been waiting for approval from Brussels in opting for nuclear power. There would be little that Brussels could do to stop the trend in any case, according to Rauli Partanen, a Finnish energy analyst and author.

[Boat + 1,323]

On 3/22/2021 at 9:39 PM, Refman said:

The US might actually benefit by being some what late to the offshore party, as they can jump straight to the new mega turbines

I don’t have good numbers but the average sized wind land size turbine in the US is just over 1.5 MW. 1.67? So today’s turbines are much larger and produce more power. In the future prime wind locations will either produce much more power or require fewer turbines for the same power. The science and tech is advancing fast. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

I don’t have good numbers but the average sized wind land size turbine in the US is just over 1.5 MW. 1.67? So today’s turbines are much larger and produce more power. In the future prime wind locations will either produce much more power or require fewer turbines for the same power. The science and tech is advancing fast. 

Recent land-based wind installations are about 5 to 6 MWe (nameplate).  Start speed about 6 MPH.  Cut-out speed about 60 MPH.  Tip speeds will become "astronomical" and may suffer from moisture droplet erosion, unless "armored" (stellite strips, anyone?). 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 3/22/2021 at 9:15 PM, turbguy said:

...and offshore rig builders should benefit, as well.

Unfortunately, from what I see, those big machines use a LOT of REE's.

I think the metric should be cost of REEs per MW (nameplate), or maybe $(REE)/actual MWh/yr.  The community seems to think that we get more consistent wind out there where the BIG turbines are, so the total energy per dollar spent on the actual generator where the REES are should be much better. In fact is has to be to cover the cost of the rest of the extra cost of offshore installation, which is concrete and steel, not REE.

Separately from siting, how does cost of REE scale with generator nameplate size? I would gureee (with no data or experience whatsoever) that a bigger generator would be make better use of the REEs.

Based on all that, the problem is not the size of the generators, but the fact that we want to generate a whole lot of electricity.

[turbguy + 1,543]

The BIG machines eschew a gearbox and slip rings/brushes (which are the most troublesome components on typical wind machines).  Being direct drive, the generators need lots of poles, and lots of PM's.   Those PM's are the reason for RRE usage.