Prototype Haliade X 12MW turbine starts operating in Rotterdam

[NickW + 2,714]

Video

https://vimeo.com/375937698

[markslawson + 1,042]

35 minutes ago, NickW said:

Video

https://vimeo.com/375937698

Nick - um, sorry, I don't understand. Was there some point to showing how the offshore installation vessel does its job?  I would have thought that for an offshore turbine you'd have to work a lot harder at anchoring it to the sea floor but whatever... anyway, I don't see the point of the post.. 

[remake it + 288]

Better?

[NickW + 2,714]

19 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - um, sorry, I don't understand. Was there some point to showing how the offshore installation vessel does its job?  I would have thought that for an offshore turbine you'd have to work a lot harder at anchoring it to the sea floor but whatever... anyway, I don't see the point of the post.. 

Its a significant develop given that this takes the size of offshore turbines from 8MW to 12MW. The GW+ installations going in around the world will be composed of these and no doubt what Siemens and Vestas build to rival it. 

As the first operational model of its type it makes sense to build it onshore to assess and hone its performance. Much easier than if its 20 miles out to sea. You can do the foundation tests independently. 

Rotterdam is a good location - fairly windy and easy to get to. Good location if you want to show it off to potential purchasers. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Its a significant develop given that this takes the size of offshore turbines from 8MW to 12MW. The GW+ installations going in around the world will be composed of these and no doubt what Siemens and Vestas build to rival it. 

 

22 hours ago, remake it said:

Better?

Okay, so you're talking about the new and better turbine. As we've discussed before the problem has never been to improve the efficiency of turbines but to devise cost-effective mass power storage. But, anyway, its nice that they have better turbines. 

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Okay, so you're talking about the new and better turbine. As we've discussed before the problem has never been to improve the efficiency of turbines but to devise cost-effective mass power storage.

Dead easy via curtailment and redirection of energy to produce hydrogen for "free" but as the issue of storage is not yet critical there is no need current need.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 

Okay, so you're talking about the new and better turbine. As we've discussed before the problem has never been to improve the efficiency of turbines but to devise cost-effective mass power storage. But, anyway, its nice that they have better turbines. 

For Europe Norway and Sweden have 200 Twh of Hydro capacity some of which they are planning to convert to pump storage and like the idea of providing a battery service to Europe. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 1/9/2020 at 10:31 AM, remake it said:

Dead easy via curtailment and redirection of energy to produce hydrogen for "free" but as the issue of storage is not yet critical there is no need current need.

There most certainly is a need for such storage.. and the Hydrogen stuff is just a pipe dream at the moment. Lot of talk about it and reports and so on, but it sounds a lot better in green party meetings than it does in reality.  

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 1/9/2020 at 10:31 AM, NickW said:

For Europe Norway and Sweden have 200 Twh of Hydro capacity some of which they are planning to convert to pump storage and like the idea of providing a battery service to Europe. 

Norway and Sweden can be a battery to Europe to a certain extent but the total hydro capacity would still be orders of magitude less than they need.. 

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, markslawson said:

There most certainly is a need for such storage.. and the Hydrogen stuff is just a pipe dream at the moment. Lot of talk about it and reports and so on, but it sounds a lot better in green party meetings than it does in reality.  

Please show where this additional storage is presently necessary as distinct from desirable as most grids have adequate capacity to meet normal operations.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:31 PM, NickW said:

For Europe Norway and Sweden have 200 Twh of Hydro capacity some of which they are planning to convert to pump storage and like the idea of providing a battery service to Europe. 

That is not even 2 days of the daily needs of Germany before one tackles removing natural gas.  Let alone the other 400 Million ppl in Europe.   Until Switzerland/Austria, parts of France, Italy, Spain Hungary, etc all disappears under thousands of gigantic tall dams and deep lakes, this is a pipe dream.  At least Europe is fairly lucky.  It technically is possible due to their geography and large rainfall.  Rest of the world?  Well.... not exactly.  A different form of energy storage is required. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

That is not even 2 days of the daily needs of Germany before one tackles removing natural gas.  Let alone the other 400 Million ppl in Europe.   Until Switzerland/Austria, parts of France, Italy, Spain Hungary, etc all disappears under thousands of gigantic tall dams and deep lakes, this is a pipe dream.  At least Europe is fairly lucky.  It technically is possible due to their geography and large rainfall.  Rest of the world?  Well.... not exactly.  A different form of energy storage is required. 

I haven't at any point made an argument that Europe could completely dispense with fossil fuels & nuclear. 

Just to clarify:

I am cautiously supportive of Nuclear

Preference gas over coal. Gas networks also have the benefit that you can inject biogas into them and add limited of quantities of Hydrogen if renewables are overbuilt and there is intermittent excess electricity which is another form of storage. 

If coal is used then the way the Danes use it is a good example as its often used in combined heat and power applications where the total energy recovery is 85%

------------------------------

On the issue of the rest of the World I have on occasions looked at Saudi Arabia where I lived and has no permanent water courses.  A fews years back they were proposing to build 200GW of solar and 30 GW of wind

Potential storage opportunities include:

Pump storage using salt water - the west has a continuous mountain range up to 2500 metres high

Hydrogen injection into the gas grid

Rail system pump storage https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage

Compressed Air

Batteries. I still contend that the way forward with this is gradual and building up storage from 2nd life EV batteries which will have decades of function before they finally expire. Realistically limited opportunity in Saudi as the shift to EV will be very slow there. 

Demand management - probably pushing it bit in Saudi but trying to shift some demand according to price / frequency signals. 

 

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

17 hours ago, remake it said:

Please show where this additional storage is presently necessary as distinct from desirable as most grids have adequate capacity to meet normal operations.

Ah - now I understand - quite right, they are not actually necessary to make the grid work because the grids will have sufficiently conventional power to hand to cove when the renewables go offline, but they certainly if you want the renewables to replace even a part of the conventional backup required.. anyway, time to move on..  

[Otis11 + 551]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:03 PM, markslawson said:

Norway and Sweden can be a battery to Europe to a certain extent but the total hydro capacity would still be orders of magitude less than they need.. 

The oil industry is always given crap for 'only having 30 years of oil left!!!! Panic!!!!' - but I'd expect most of us here to know that this is because no one is going to spend additional exploration budget when they already have a 30 year pipeline at various stages on the reserve spectrum. The same goes for other industries. Why are they going to build out infrastructure that won't be economical for 20 years?

Sure, if we had the storage now, we could use it, but the minimal use now doesn't justify the cost of construction. As curtailments grow and variability increases, it will make more economic sense.

(Also, demand shifting is a huge 'storage' mechanism that people often overlook. Water heaters, ACs, Fridges, Freezers, EVs, etc - a huge portion of residential and commercial loads can be shifted hours with minimal cost/usability impact.)
 

On 1/10/2020 at 2:22 AM, NickW said:

I haven't at any point made an argument that Europe could completely dispense with fossil fuels & nuclear. 

Just to clarify:

I am cautiously supportive of Nuclear

Preference gas over coal. Gas networks also have the benefit that you can inject biogas into them and add limited of quantities of Hydrogen if renewables are overbuilt and there is intermittent excess electricity which is another form of storage. 

If coal is used then the way the Danes use it is a good example as its often used in combined heat and power applications where the total energy recovery is 85%

------------------------------

On the issue of the rest of the World I have on occasions looked at Saudi Arabia where I lived and has no permanent water courses.  A fews years back they were proposing to build 200GW of solar and 30 GW of wind

Potential storage opportunities include:

Pump storage using salt water - the west has a continuous mountain range up to 2500 metres high

Hydrogen injection into the gas grid

Rail system pump storage https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage

Compressed Air

Batteries. I still contend that the way forward with this is gradual and building up storage from 2nd life EV batteries which will have decades of function before they finally expire. Realistically limited opportunity in Saudi as the shift to EV will be very slow there. 

Demand management - probably pushing it bit in Saudi but trying to shift some demand according to price / frequency signals. 

 

 

There's also subsurface reservoir storage. Actually, many oil reservoirs make great either water or air pressure storage depending on geology.

 

And yes, Demand management/demand shifting is likely to be a key.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, Otis11 said:

 

There's also subsurface reservoir storage. Actually, many oil reservoirs make great either water or air pressure storage depending on geology.

 

CO2 injection can also increase the yield from the well, but in that case you just want to leave it down there.

I kind of like the idea of using the Hoover dam as a massive pumped hydro "battery."

https://www.power-technology.com/features/hoover-dam-giant-battery/

Edited January 13, 2020 by Enthalpic

[markslawson + 1,042]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

The oil industry is always given crap for 'only having 30 years of oil left!!!! Panic!!!!' - but I'd expect most of us here to know that this is because no one is going to spend additional exploration budget when they already have a 30 year pipeline at various stages on the reserve spectrum. The same goes for other industries. Why are they going to build out infrastructure that won't be economical for 20 years?

While I don't disagree with your comments on the oil industry, the crucial difference with hydro storage is that most of the likely dams sites have already been built on and there is, unlike oil, a known limit of only so much geography to go around.  You can build dams were no thought of putting them before. There have been suggestions for salt water dams and dams in old mining sites for example, but these have proved to be just fantasies to date. Any new dam projects tends to get bogged down in environmental regulation.. The one and only salt water pumped hydro facility that I know of was in Japan and that's been decommissioned. But whatever happens new dams tend to be horrifically expensive. We're not talking about the cheap option.  

[remake it + 288]

11 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I kind of like the idea of using the Hover dam

Many in Rotterdam claim to have seen the Hover dam while weeding.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, markslawson said:

While I don't disagree with your comments on the oil industry, the crucial difference with hydro storage is that most of the likely dams sites have already been built on and there is, unlike oil, a known limit of only so much geography to go around.  You can build dams were no thought of putting them before. There have been suggestions for salt water dams and dams in old mining sites for example, but these have proved to be just fantasies to date. Any new dam projects tends to get bogged down in environmental regulation.. The one and only salt water pumped hydro facility that I know of was in Japan and that's been decommissioned. But whatever happens new dams tend to be horrifically expensive. We're not talking about the cheap option.  

Thanks to droughts many of the current dams can hold a lot more water.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:02 PM, markslawson said:

There most certainly is a need for such storage.. and the Hydrogen stuff is just a pipe dream at the moment. Lot of talk about it and reports and so on, but it sounds a lot better in green party meetings than it does in reality.  

Natural gas makes the most sense, but greenies don't like it. Wind will cost more unless energy storage becomes inexpensive enough. Norway has new oil and gas finds recently also.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/14/2020 at 6:18 PM, ronwagn said:

Natural gas makes the most sense, but greenies don't like it. Wind will cost more unless energy storage becomes inexpensive enough. Norway has new oil and gas finds recently also.

Not if the cost of Wind /solar electricity  drops significantly below that of gas generated electricity. 

Then gas has to compete with, Hydro & storage as the means by which the marginal supply of electricity is provided. 

[Bob D + 562]

Why aren't dams stacked up one after another on a river?  After the water passes through the turbines the potential of that water to create power again still exists.  

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Bob D said:

Why aren't dams stacked up one after another on a river?  After the water passes through the turbines the potential of that water to create power again still exists.  

The river has to drop sufficiently before you can build another otherwise the water backing up from the dame downstream will reduce the head at the upper dam. 

Also this is the basic equation for energy from Hydro is

Flow (LPS) x Head (Metres) x 9.8 (Gravitational Constant = the gross energy available. You then have to apply a conversion factor to reflect the efficiency of the generator ) . 

Head is one of the main considerations of where to build Hydro. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 PM, markslawson said:

While I don't disagree with your comments on the oil industry, the crucial difference with hydro storage is that most of the likely dams sites have already been built on and there is, unlike oil, a known limit of only so much geography to go around.  You can build dams were no thought of putting them before. There have been suggestions for salt water dams and dams in old mining sites for example, but these have proved to be just fantasies to date. Any new dam projects tends to get bogged down in environmental regulation.. The one and only salt water pumped hydro facility that I know of was in Japan and that's been decommissioned. But whatever happens new dams tend to be horrifically expensive. We're not talking about the cheap option.  

 

Wiki

The operator could not put the power station into practical use because the demand for electric power in Okinawa had not grown as predicted, and the plant was not profitable as a business. The power plant was dismantled in July 2016.

So technically operable but not economic in the locality it was built. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

21 hours ago, NickW said:

Wiki

The operator could not put the power station into practical use because the demand for electric power in Okinawa had not grown as predicted, and the plant was not profitable as a business. The power plant was dismantled in July 2016.

So technically operable but not economic in the locality it was built. 

Thanks for that.. I hadn't looked at the project closely. Sure, they work, although I have wondered about the use of salt water in turbines but, anyway, interesting..

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 1/18/2020 at 5:37 PM, Bob D said:

Why aren't dams stacked up one after another on a river?  After the water passes through the turbines the potential of that water to create power again still exists.  

Hydro-Quebec does exactly that.  The plateau of the central escarpment is at 1,000 feet Above Sea Level, and the dams are placed at where rapids now exist, for what are in effect run-of-river power dams.  You can get five sets of dams along one river from the escarpment down to James Bay.

Also, take a look at the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.  You first have the massive installations at Niagara Falls, with a vertical drop of 177 feet.  Then after the water flows through Lake Ontario, it reaches Beauharnois, Quebec, where the Rapids do a drop of perhaps 60 feet, and Hydro-Quebec has built the massive Beauharnois Dam, again a run-of-river project with 38 generators.  Those installations put out serious oomph.   Go a bit further downstream and you have yet again another Hydro installation on the Back River behind Montreal, taking yet a third bit out of the St. Lawrence River drop.   Anywhere you have a rapids you can build a dam and use the drop. In Vermont on the Winooski River there are four power dams within 40 miles.  Lots of places you can pull that off.