 | DrumBeat: June 13, 2009 | The Oil Drum | Right Sizing the Economy: Can Herman Daly's Prescription for a Steady State Economy Accomplish this Task? |  |
| Aleklett: Australia highly vulnerable to oil shortages | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Peak Oil In The Australian, Once Again | |
Floating Offshore Wind Power Update
Posted by Big Gav on June 13, 2009 - 10:59am in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
I did a post last year on the potential for floating offshore wind power, which looked at a number of different prototypes at various stages of development.
StatoilHydro and Siemens have made some progress on their pilot project, installing the world's first large-scale floating offshore wind turbine off the coast of Karmøy, Norway. The 2.3 MW Hywind (see the link for a set of videos on the turbine being deployed) was built at a depth of 722 feet and will be tested over the next two years.
StatoilHydro is investing around NOK 400 million (US$62 million) in the pilot and related research and development. Enova SF, a company whose aim is to promote the transition to environmentally friendly energy use and energy production in Norway, has contributed NOK 59 million (US$9 million) in support for the project.
The New York Times has a brief report on this - Wind Farming in Deep Waters.
Most existing offshore wind turbines are mounted firmly to the seabed. Now StatoilHydro of Norway and Siemens of Germany are installing what they say is the world’s first large-scale floating turbine to exploit the potential of the technology in deep waters.
Building foundations to attach turbines to the seabed becomes expensive at water depths of more than about 50 meters (164 feet), according to the companies. That has limited large-scale exploitation of offshore wind power, particularly in countries with little or no shallow water near the coast line, they said.
Expansion near coastlines can also be difficult because of restrictions on construction in fishing grounds and bird migration zones. And an advantage of building on the high seas is that winds are stronger and more consistent than near the coast. ...
The new turbine is designed to be suitable for installation in water depths between 120 and 700 meters (394-2,297 feet), allowing them to be “placed much more freely than before,” said Henrik Stiesdal of the wind power unit at Siemens. ...
Siemens is supplying the turbine, which will start delivering electricity in mid-July. StatoilHydro is providing the floating structure with a center of gravity deep below the water surface to reduce bobbing. That structure would then be fastened to the seabed by three anchor wires. Even so, the companies have developed an “advanced control system” to take “advantage of the turbine’s ability to dampen out part of the wave-induced motions of the floating system.”
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (11)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (6)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (10)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (16)
- February 2009 (16)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (15)
- November 2008 (23)
- October 2008 (25)
- September 2008 (24)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (44)
- June 2008 (38)
- May 2008 (48)
- April 2008 (43)
- March 2008 (29)
- February 2008 (32)
- January 2008 (30)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (11)
Hey Gav;
Thanks for posting that. The development for the Gulf of Maine is gunning for floating turbines, as well. I would think this could become a very dynamic approach, where you can set up portable rigs, customize windfarms as weather patterns dictate.. etc.
Sorry about my Mom up there. I tell her never to post after dinner, and today was Meatloaf day.. bad combination!
Bob
Heh, heh - thanks Bob. Might be time for Mom to have a spell on her meds I think.
I'm hoping we'll see a few of these pilot projects trialled over the next couple of years, then Matt can get his Gulf of Maine project up and running (I'm assuming that is the one you are talking about) :-)
Oh, and yes, it's Matt's project. (And an Ex-gov, Angus King)
Bob
Global warming will impose a cruel irony on green power.
I have been greatly disheartened by new studies that show a reduction of wind velocity across wide areas in both Europe and North America. The slowing winds are a direct result of the effect of global warming.
This affect has already been observed is Europe and on the North American continent. The calming of the winds are most pronounced in the east coast and the mid west.
In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this. The result, the average temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it, the difference in air pressure in the two regions. Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower atmospheric pressure differences means less wind.
As the arctic ice pack melts and the arctic oceans warm the temperature of the surface across the northern hemisphere will increase becoming more equalized. This will results is an average diminution in the power that can be extracted from the wind. No one knows how extreme this effect will be, but its underscores the old adage that you should never put all your eggs in one basket.
Yes, big investments made on wind both out the sea and on shore will increasingly become ineffective, leaving only conventional power production to rely on.
It would be nice if you could provide some references to the papers you are basing these claims on...
here you go:
http://www.physorg.com/news163835515.html
Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped.
Janap128 says "The slowing winds are a direct result of the effect of global warming."
Reading the article I note such phrases as: "A first-of-its-kind study suggests..."; ...still a speculative one..."; "...scientists disagree..."; "...some areas --- do not show winds slowing nearly as much..."; "...too early to know..."; etc.
That is the way with global warming. Speculation always turns to certainty. The next study will be more ominous, it always is. It starts is some areas, but then its spreads. It always grows more serious as time goes on. It always accelerates beyond expectations. It always increases in severity. It never stops, it only grows worse. It is not a thing that hope is built on. What do you expect the merchants of wind mills to say? Hope sells their product. But the less wind there is, the more wind mills we will need to buy. When you stake your fate on the weather, you are bound for disappointment and tragedy.
We have seen peak wind. We are starting the down slide. We are past a tipping point. Get use to it.
Well, if your statement is correct, we are going to have much more wind power in the future:
http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
Ocean surface currents redistribute heat around the world and have a profound effect on the world’s climate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current ferry huge volumes of warm salty tropical water north to the Greenland coast and to the Nordic Seas. Heat radiating off of this water helps keep the countries of northwest Europe, which are at the same latitude as Labrador and Greenland, relatively comfortable places to live.
Many scientists, however, are warning that the North Atlantic might cool down, perhaps by the turn of the century. Paradoxically, global warming would be to blame. Rising temperatures may trigger events that could not only slow the supply of tropical water flowing north, it could disrupt the entire ocean circulation pattern.
(Btw, conveyed water has an enormous and very efficient and effective heating/cooling power. For laymen: If the tiny water pump of a car running on a few W and pumping several kW stops, the radiator cools and the engine overheats rapidly and leading to huge temperature difference between radiator and engine).
A lot of 'Always and Nevers' in there, Janap.
The thing is, our future IS staked on the weather, either way. Always has been. If we can't keep plains and forests and seas alive and producing a broad range of life (all of it relatively weather dependent).. then our goose is cooked anyway. There will be BOTH less wind, and there will be more wind.. (and if you asked Buddha, he might add 'And NEITHER will there be less wind NOR more wind..' , just to mess with your head)
I'm still keeping an eye on the VAWT's which operate over a wider range of winds, from the wee Zephyrs to the great Gales, since it seems quite possible that whatever part of the world you live in, your climate future might well have to deal with one of those. ( www.windside.com - not plugging my own stuff, just a Vertical Windmill Company) Durability and Range might well trump efficiency.
You seem completely taken in by one set of predictions. Don't forget your Goldman. "Nobody knows anything."
A lot of 'Always and Nevers' in there, Janap.
There will be BOTH less wind, and there will be more wind.
'Always and Nevers' … Only if that were true.
Change is the enemy. Climate change is the enemy of wind mills. We site huge concentrations of mills in the windy places, in locations where the past has predicted that it would be good for wind. What else can we do, this is all we can do, but the mills are huge like buildings that cannot be easily moved.
The power lines from the mill sites are expensive to lay costing trillions. There are rights of way to consider for these grid lines, in fact, there is a highway of towers to build; people to move out of the way, megatons of concrete to pore; leases to sign. Yes, the connection of a wind site to the grid is the major expense of wind power. We sit back contented in our work, proud of our accomplishments; we have saved ourselves and our civilization and can now resume our lives of comfort.
And then the climate changes and the winds move to a new and distant place. The wind suiting process must be redone. The tiring task of saving the world must be done anew. The old sites must be abandoned. The old grid connections are now useless and must be abandon. Huge sums of money have now been wasted.
We must start all over again in a new place with no guarantee that this new site will last. There may be cities of people in the way, and huge sums wasted with investors who have lost everything.
All because the climate is changing, nothing is firm, there is constant moving, and nothing can be counted on.
There is no always, and never does not exist.
'And NEITHER will there be less wind NOR more wind..' , just to mess with your head
Besides the fact that the temperature difference between equator and northern hemisphere will increase and there is wind in all coastal regions (landmass heats up faster and cools faster than oceanmass - thermodynamic laws won't change with new doom theories): http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
Even if this was the case: Future generations hopefully won't just sit on their lazy behinds or just invent new useless financial instruments and they hopefully will produce something too.
Besides the fact that the temperature difference between equator and northern hemisphere will increase
It is just the opposite, this is at the heart of the problem. The polar areas and the temperate zone temperatures are equalizing.
Look at the polar studies, the ice is melting. The ocean currents will change. Who can tell for certain what will happen.
Actually, it is just the opposite, this is at the heart of the problem. The temperature difference between the equator and the northern hemisphere will probably increase.
Just because you keep on ignoring this reference, doesn't make your doom theory including the end of thermodynamic laws more true:
http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
Ocean surface currents redistribute heat around the world and have a profound effect on the world’s climate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current ferry huge volumes of warm salty tropical water north to the Greenland coast and to the Nordic Seas. Heat radiating off of this water helps keep the countries of northwest Europe, which are at the same latitude as Labrador and Greenland, relatively comfortable places to live.
Many scientists, however, are warning that the North Atlantic might cool down, perhaps by the turn of the century. Paradoxically, global warming would be to blame. Rising temperatures may trigger events that could not only slow the supply of tropical water flowing north, it could disrupt the entire ocean circulation pattern.
Even if this was the case: Future generations hopefully won't just sit on their lazy behinds or just invent new useless financial instruments and they hopefully will produce something too.
This is what was built during World War II with manufacturing technology and materials from the 1930's (no high strength lightweight composite materials) without knowing which side will win the war or despite knowing which side was about to win the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Building a few 1,000 new offshore wind turbines with today's technology and today's population every year doesn't sound like a big deal. Most people actually do like jobs.
Massive infusions of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland ice cap will dilute the salt content of the northern Atlantic Ocean for millennia and stop the world wide circulations of the seas that you reference. Things that always have been will change drastically and unpredictably. Yes, things that have been since the dawn of civilization will change. That is what climate change is all about. This is what makes it so fearful. References from past studies will not hold true and are not applicable as a prediction of the future. That is what change is.
If this were to take place, let us call it the north atlantic freshening mode, the relative cooling of the north atlantic region would slow the melting. This implies a fairly strong negative feedback mechanism exists for this mode. A negative feedback will act to limit the amplitude of the change. This mode, if it is indeed real would rduce the albedo driven polar amplification, but not likely eliminate it.
How so? Sea water is warmer than ice, so the melting wouldn't seem overly effected. This is especially true since the ocean currents run from the Pacific through the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic, as do the winds, in general.
Still, if you can explain how this might slow melt, it'd be interesting. After all, the Younger Dryas *did* happen.
Cheers
There are two arguments taking place here on TOD with respect to the 'peak wind' issue. This is how they appear to me:
- One argument has wind power as a replacement for conventional fossil fuel power stations. The effect of adding wind turbines is that coal and nuclear energy can be replaced with a non- polluting, no FF input source.
- Two argument has wind power as an augment along side increasing conventional fuel power station capacity. There is no replacement, wind power is used to leverage bureaucratic climate 'quotas' or to add to overall capacity.
The first argument suggests that FF power is a wasting asset. In this case, having some alternative is better than the 'no alternaitve' or carbon alternative such aw diesel generators. If wind is not quite as effective as nameplate output might suggest, it would still provide power, some time, that power managed effectively would be very useful.
The second argument takes place in a more or less economic context. If there is less wind power the payback period becomes longer. Extended long enough and the turbines become uneconomical. Wheher the turbines generate electricity or not is unimportant, it is the finance dynamic that matter. In this context, turbines are concentrated money. If the turbines cannot pay for themselves they are a wasted asset.
As the energyfinance crisis deepens, the near term issue of financiability of an asset will become sxtremely important for a little while, then not matter at all. If power can be had, even on- and- off, it will be a good thing, Even if there is a drop off in wind - and there is certainly no concsensus about that taking place - the wind will not stop completely.
In the land of no electricity, the man with the 'slowly turning' windmill is king.
In the land of no electricity, the man with the 'slowly turning' windmill is king.
Yes, but in that world, there is a lot less people.
the wind will not stop completely.
How do you know that? How can a man know what the future of climate will be?
It is concrete and steel that is the real investment; we can only put a limited amount of carbon into our air; that is the limiting factor; that is the real investment. Every once of concrete and steel must count toward the future, none can be wasted. The scales of our existence must be wisely balanced. New money can always be printed, but atmospheric carbon has a finite limit.
I don't know if there will be more or less people. I don't have control. It's equally likely ... there will be more or there will be less. More or less power is different. Small groups can decide if there will be more or less power and how that power will be utilized. This ia really the appeal of wind, even more than PV and certainly moreso than hydro or nuclear. Wind is the 'small is beautiful' power source. I believe part of the problems that are reported with wind have to do with the fact that wind is inherently decentralized - the utility monopolies have difficulties gaining total control of it. I suspect this is behind a lot of the 'load balancing' issues and may be behind the 'peak wind' argument, as well.
The new- design turbines are an object form, once the form is mastered ... it can be reproduced and improved. I suspect with the right tools, wind turbines could be made - and should be made - locally in fairly small shops. A floating turbine as described in the article could be built by any shop that can build ocean going boats, for instance. A ship to lay the power cord would be the only large vessel really needed to erect one of these or even much larger turbines.
The oil industry makes very large platforms. They can make turbines as well.
In any case there is no guarantee of success, but failure is guaranteed by not making any attempts.
As for the wind stopping, this is unlikely. Not because I know or don't know; I am not a wind expert and I don't care to be. But physics doesn't change, the Earth still orbits around the Sun, it rotates on its axis; there is heat on one side of the planet and fierce cold on the other. This means there will probably be wind. The effect of the sun heating the ground faster than the ocean means there will be wind from the ocean toward the land on days with no clouds. It's reasonable to consider there will be wind, even in a warmer world ... or a hot one for that matter.
As for accounting, the current method measured everything with money and the money managers always measure against what they need for themselves, first. Reduce the influence of money managers, which is a form of tariff, and get to necessities - substituting (fill- in- the- blank) energy development for smaller priorities and there will be adequate resources. It's true, there are few resources to waste, but this has been the case from the very beginning of the industrial revolution. There is a lot of 'fat' in consumer society that can be cut with the resources directed to more useful investments. For instance, the last fifteen years has seen a massive investment in luxury vacation lodging, all over the world. Each hotel and resort represents 5 or more wind turbines and the all important wires that connect them to users. The resources for new power could be as simple as not building any more luxury hotels and building wind turbines instead.
There will be less people. We're in a massive population overshoot that was driven at first by the fossil nitrates of the Atacama desert and then later by fossil fuel produced synthetic ammonia. I think now even if we had the wisdom to approach the problem on a war footing, which won't be politically popular until every beachfront home in the U.S, is washed away, we still face receding horizons. The massive deflation we face makes new projects less likely and so it goes until we're down to the solar max for the planet. That's two billion if we're on our renewables game like action superheros and less than a billion if we go at it the way we've always done.
The wind is a consequence of differential temperatures across the globe. Even if all the snow/ice were to melt, there would still be significant temperature differences, as available solar energy is much less at the poles -and at high lattitudes there is a lot of solar heating in the summer, but little to none in the winter. So winds will still blow, although at perhaps slightly reduced speeds. We know enough about plantary climate to confidently predict that much.
Janap,when you ask how someone knows that the wind will not stop blowing completely,you betray an unfortunate lack of acquaintance with the basic physics that drive our weather.
Now it is very possible that the DIFFERENCE between polar temperatures and tropical temperatures will diminish,especially if the reflective ice all melts, but the temperatures simply CANNOT equalize for a couple of very simple reasons.
The facts that the earth is a sphere and that it is tilted on it's axis means that the relative amount of sunlight reaching the surface varies a great deal(ever heard of the midnight sun,or the days that last for days above the Arctic Circle?)from equator to either pole.There are other variables but they are not as important.
Even if the earth were stationary,the polar regions would receive either more or less energy than the tropics,and the resulting temperature differences would create high and low pressure systems and the wind will blow.
Now if the thermohaline circulation collapses,it will undoubtedly play hell with the weather and the climate(they are not the same thing) but THINK.The thc moves heat from the tropics toward the arctic areas.If it stops,the effect will be to increase,not decrease,the temperature differential,WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THE WIND BLOW.
You are in over your head,but don't let that bother you, we all learn things here.I've learned the hard way myself more than once.
The ground heats and cools faster than the oceans. This means that in areas bordered by land/sea, there will be wind. Venus, with an average surafce temperature of 460 degrees C, and a variation of about 30 degrees C, has some of the strongest winds in the Solar System.
The Earth is a sphere, (effectivly) by a single point-source of light. This means that the Poles will necessarily recieve less energy than the Equator. The difference in recieved energy means a difference in temperature. This temperature differential will remain, even if the relative difference is reduced.
Every orbital body we know of that has a persistent atmosphere has winds. We could therefore deduce, with a very small margin of error, that Earth will always have wind while it has an atmosphere.
Your errors are in equating conditions in the North Atlantic with conditions around the globe and in speaking as if the THC is the only variable.
Neither are accurate. Arctic Amplification pretty much guarantees a gradual equalizing between the tropics and the Arctic even if there is regional cooling in Europe due to the slowing or shutting down of the THC.
Cheers
My sense is, without even wasting a napkin doing calculations, that the pulse of cold, fresh water coming out of the arctic ice melt is something that takes an age to start moving again, even in a warmer world. We're out of the Holocene and into the Ohshitocene, but thermal inertia still exists :-)
Well, anything is possible and there are flips that happen in as little as two years that have global consequences, so... But if we're talking a more gradual change, AA might keep things pretty well correlated. Besides, I'm not so sure the sea ice melting has much of an affect, given a lot of the melt is already from the bottom up. The melt water from the continent/Greenland, though...
Cheers
THC is not the only variable but the ocean conveyor belt in the Atlantic is a very significant variable (efficient and very powerful distribution of heat energy from south to north and vice versa).
Without the ocean conveyor belt in the Atlantic equalizing of heat energy will be reduced.
Since most wind turbines are built on the Northern hemisphere, the Atlantic THC is particularly relevant concerning wind power.
Anyway, just assuming wind conditions would in fact change significantly in 100 years from now, does that mean the world shouldn't erect wind turbines with a lifespan of 20 years?
We can only take planning for the future so far. Make your best guess and go for it. It is a great argument for micro-wind development, however.
Cheers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090611142354.htm
Related: Rapid Climate Change, Monsoons
That is a very nice reference re: WWII production. I've cobbled one up myself on a couple of occasions but it's good to have one solid reference like that.
Janap,
"but the mills are huge like buildings that cannot be easily moved. " Look up. Up top. We're on a thread about Floating Windturbines!! While this doesn't guarantee that this attempt will work (yet), much less become the norm, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this sort of windfarm could be relocated if/when a given site suddenly fell into a lull. But you seem to be insisting on only doing things that are guaranteed.
"Change is the enemy. Climate Change is the enemy of Windturbines." YOU Don't know that. Sorry if you're awash in hopelessness this weekend, but the 'Wind is going to die out' prediction is one of three that I hear about our climate future, and none are promises I will hold anyone to.
The Motto of my Natural History teacher in High School was 'The only thing that stays the same is change.' Change isn't the enemy. Change is Life. The whole way of getting energy is taking advantage of Change. Changing a fuel's chemical state, Catching the movement as a High Pressure and a Low Pressure system interact, Catching water changing from being up high to down low.
Some installations and technologies will be bad investments, but I haven't heard you make a credible argument that we are really going to see the end of usable windpower.
"Change is the enemy. Climate Change is the enemy of Windturbines." YOU Don't know that.
And you don’t know that it is not. There is uncertainty.
Granted, off shore mills are more movable and a wiser investment. If you can’t be sure be flexible.
Winds will weaken and wind patters will change. Because of this uncertainty, investing trillions on hard to relocate inland mills is not wise, off shore is better but more expensive.
We have have one shot at this. Climate change is not merciful and forgiving. I hope you are right, we only have one bet to make. If we loss, the game is over.
We don't only have ONE SHOT at this. BB's, remember?
Even with megabucks invested in wind (and a great deal of that investment is private, so it is not 'Our last round in the society's chamber' so to speak) , there is also development in all the other things talked about here.
You need to look at your own 'Be Flexible' line up there..
Bob
This greatly overstates the case. Optimally placed windturbines will then be inoptimally placed, reducing the return on investment somewhat. The currently windiest local sites are mostly still going to be the windiest. That is because they are usually on ridgetops, and wind gaps, where the topography supports locally stronger winds. Those aspects won't change, even if the global patterns shift. The WT will still be useful, just less so than the original planners thought. And WTs typically have lifetimes of rought 25-30 years, not a huge amount of climate change on those time scales.
True -- it's all in your head.... Just use what you have ; do not make plans on what you don't have.
Mmm......
Actually polar winds (the Polar Vortices) are getting stronger and tighter and the temperatures under them are getting colder - all as part of global warming. Sub polar temperatures are showing significant anomalies. Much of the Arctic sub polar region is warming and the West Antarctic peninsular is also warmer (much warmer), whereas the East and central Antarctic is cooler. The grounded Greenland and (below sea level) West Antarctic ice sheets are both vulnerable and showing signs of accelerated melting.
There are several other changes occurring as a result of global warming, including stronger winds in some areas (eg tropical revolving storms) and lower winds in other areas (Indian monsoonal winds are weaker in El-Nino years). Generally though, climate is predicted to become more variable and unsettled because of the higher water vapour content of the atmosphere.
So I agree with Big Gav. Lets have a more evidence of calmer weather patterns with AGW.
Lets have a more evidence of calmer weather patterns with AGW.
Were does evidence get you, if you only have two carbon free power options? No evidence based change of course is possible. It is out of the hands of rational decision making and into the cruel and unfeeling claws of chance; Russian roulette on a global scale. This is the inconvenient truth of global warming.
2 carbon free options in the next 100 years?
* Efficient heating
* Efficient cooling
* Efficient transportation
* Efficient lighting
* Efficient manufacturing (e.g. electric motors)
* Efficient transformers
* Efficient distribution of power
* Smart electricity usage (no standby power, no lit empty streets etc.)
* Solar hot water heating
* Solar hot water cooling
* Geothermal heating
* Geothermal cooling
* Photovoltaics
* CSP
* Hydro
* Wave
* Wind
* Tidal
* Geothermal power
* Biomass (instead of letting biomass mass rot and let it produce methane its better to produce power and no methane with it).
* No deforestation
* Reduced meat consumption
* Introduction of family planing/education
Assuming wind conditions would indeed change in 100 years from now, why should building of wind turbines with a lifespan of 20 years be prohibited?
Not really. Steig, et al.:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html
Their write-up on RealClimate: State of Antarctica: red or blue?
Their comments on responses:
Warm reception to Antarctic warming story
Further comments on responses:
Antarctic warming is robust
By the way, it's vortex, I'd think, given it exists in Antarctica only, at least in the way you describe it as isolating the polar region. The Arctic very much shares winds with the rest of the NH. That's part of what is wreaking havoc with the Arctic sea ice.
This is one of those things that wasn't supposed to be happening for another hundred years or more.
Cheers
The accompanying photo looks like a Sesame Street sketch about 'co-operation'.
"The three little tugboats were all pulling as hard as they could, but they didn't seem to be going anywhere..."
Bryan
Gav,
I can see some advantages is being able to assemble all of the turbine in one unit in a dry-dock and then floating it out to sea, avoiding the need for super sized floating cranes, should mean that much larger turbines could be built.
Neil1947 -
Not only that, but I would think that maintenance and major component replacement would also be a lot easier, as the entire unit could just be towed back to a central docking facility rather than having to do the work on the high seas, an activity which is always pretty dicey.
Decommissioning at the end of the unit's service life would also be much easier and less costly. And come to think of it, it would not be entirely out of the realm of possibility to sell used wind turbines as an entire turn-key unit, as it would be possible to just tow it to a new location.
It appears to me that there are some definite advantages to floating wind turbines. However, I have no idea of how the life-cycle cost compares with that of a fixed offshore turbine.
I just hope they have the tethering system fully sorted out, because if some of these big ones broke loose during a major storm it could cause considerable havoc to sea traffic in the area.
You could tow it or you could use some variant of one of these.
Perhaps pick several up at once.
That is one awesome photo.
There was a offshore wind farm built with 2 turbines rated at 5MW. They built a steel frame for the foundations, then installed the turbines fully assemble in a single lift each to sit on top of the frames. Some impressive pictures.
http://beatricewind.co.uk/press/technical_3.asp
http://beatricewind.co.uk/press/technical_2.asp
Is that the UK ship that hit the only rock between Lord Howe Island and South America a few years back? ;)
Yeah, you yourself "just" do this every week? I would suggest if it needs stabilising cables when standing still it needs them even more when being tugged around. The reason for having three tugs pulling in opposite directions is that the current or wind could change direction any minute making things go "slightly" wrong! (Consider the huge forces on such a structure.) Moving these things any distance would be quite an undertaking.
RobinPC -
Well, I guess the word "just" is a highly relative term.
Of course, towing one of these things is hardly trivial, but by the same token, much larger and more difficult structures, such as offshore oil rigs and floating dry docks, have been routinely towed some rather large distances for several decades now. The capability is certainly there.
Yes, quite an undertaking but not impossible.
The three anchor lines are just to stop the thing moving around "too much" so that the line to shore don't break. But if I were an engineer on this I would allow for disconnection if the anchors broke.
You realise that such a structure might also be able to generate energy from the waves as well.
And in the event of high winds the whole structure will probably just tip over a bit, spilling wind. Just like a sail boat. Of course in really high winds the blades would feather... and you know what... I believe that we already have that technology thanks to the aircraft industry.
OF course it might all be more complex than that...
I wonder how vertical axis machines would behave?
Might only need one anchor point then...
Isn't the bottom line, that it would be impractical to move these things to take advantage of say seasonal changes in the weather. But, if after a few years in one location, you decided another spot would be better, that move might be worthwhile. You have to be able to amortize the cost of the move against a long operational period in the new location.
So now another hypothetical situation is asserted to which you then argue? Why do I or others have to knock down something for which you offer no proof?
Do we even know IF we are going to move them as you suggest?
Tell you what, you do some checking on the amortization of the oil rigs that do the exploration (they move them things around no probs!), use that to extrapolate to these (by comparison) small installations... and get back to us.
Now, is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
I agree,
This could be basically created in a modified Shipyard. (in MAINE!)
Thank you for this post...activities such as this provide hope.
I also find this article to be informative and forward-looking; keep up the good work, Big Gav.
I wonder if capacity adjusted capital cost is that different between onshore and offshore. I'm using C/c where C is capital cost per watt and c is capacity factor.
For onshore C/c = $4.50 per watt/35%
= 4.5/0.35 ≅ 13
For offshore I'm guessing 8/0.5 = 16
On the other hand it needs less backup so this is an incomplete metric.
Boof,
On shore costs for wind were $US 1.50/W capacity in 2007( higher in 2008 because of commodity spike, should be back to 2007 prices).
In Australia wind farms were costing $AUD 2.00/W, last year so fairly similar. Infigen values its 508MW capacity in Australia at $AUD1,073Million and US 1069MW at $AUS 2,267(excluding tax credits)
Incoming from janap128:
Global warming will impose a cruel irony on green power.
You may indeed be right. I wonder if the world will take a shot at trying to introduce artificial cooling by blocking sunlight. Of course, that doesn't bode well for solar power.
regards,
Oz
I hope you guys are just being sarcastic here...
Besides that the ocean conveyer belt will slow down due to global warming and thus increase the temperature difference between equator and the northern hemisphere. http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
Artificial sunlight blocking (if this was ever being considered) is controlled sunlight blocking and would obviously not happen over areas with solar power plants.
Even if we choose that sort of geoengineering (sulphate injection), the amount of solar dimming needed is only about a percent. Not a wanted (for PV) change, but not disastrous either.
If you are gonna look for a good site, even if a little hard to get to, how about up? Up has the advantage of far stronger and more persistent winds, and is cheaper.
I saw a cute idea while back- big wheel on the ground, perimeter lines to huge flying wings up maybe a km. Wings pull on half the rotating wheel at the right time, and go to low drag configuration on the return.
Then of course, you go to pumped water with the wheel, storage lakes, and you are all set for round the clock sustainable power.
That will be 2 cents, please.
Now back to super cheap solar stirling, also pumping water.
PS. When I was a kid, I made huge kites, for some reason forgotten. They would always pull me over, and/or burn my hands with the string. But I found that one other string on the tail could lower the angle of attack so the kite didn't tip me over.
You aren't the first person to think of this - there are a number of efforts underway to try and exploit high altitude wind power...
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3500
"I saw a cute idea---' means I didn't think it up myself.
Nit picking aside, thanks for all the info on wind. Always a favorite of mine.
Sorry - my wording was a bit clumsy - I was just trying to introduce that post on various alternative (even more so than floating wind turbines) wind power experiments...
Um, how do I hit the "erase" button? Sorry.
There's no 'delete' option, and once someone has replied to your post, you can't edit it.
Thx for posting this Big Gav.
Here is an illustrative image depicting a hypotetical future Hywind-farm.
Personally, I am not overly enthusiastic about offshore wind farms due to my recently "rewired brain" on energy , Eroei , et al.
But - I see a prosperous future for diminishing fish-stocks here - there is no way trawlers can go on at BAU between these wire moored floating "things".
Ask any future fish "Where is fish heaven?" ... and he will point you to the nearest Hywind farm !
Will our glut for energy actually save some fish ? Hmmmm !!?... just look at the EU waters- almost fish free.
Thanks - great image.
I like the idea of these wind farms being a potential refuge for fish too :-)
Indeed, if the above scenario rang true, then having such offshore wind farms would prevent fish stock collapse for those species who could take cover. As long a sufficient supporting food chain was available, this could be a breeding ground for a more sustainable fishing approach.
You need to remember the scale these turbines are up to 150 meters high, and separated by 500-1000meters, unfortunately room for at least small fishing boats, perhaps we will go back to Dory fishing. Should be an absolute Mecca for reef fish.
I wonder if these platforms could also be used to tether Pelemis type wave generators (if / when the teething troubles have been ironed out)?
I would have no problem with small boats - its the large factory ship klondikers that really do the damage.
Doug's plan needs cheap effective Carbon fiber. http://www.selsam.com/
There you go Eric. .... again ... and again .... and again
I'm curious if there has been a study of offshore floating wind as described here vs. ocean thermal energy conversion. I realize the offshore wind optimum area and the OTEC optimum area are quite different, but a comparison of capital dollars vs. landed energy would be interesting.
Why would we waste our money on offshore wind? When the % Load Factor is not that much better than offshore for twice the expense. Wind always disappoints when you look at the reality.
Look at the latest UK wind data.
http://www.ref.org.uk/Files/ref.reds.wind.30.03.09.pdf
Look at the offshore farms at 28, 37, 126, and 191. I don't see any Load Factors greater than 40%, hard to read except for 126, Kentish Offshore which is <30%. And of course as always, the wind doesn't blow in the summer when we need it. In most place wind blows more at night, when the Demand is less, the sudden sharp changes in output are very difficult to follow, meaning 1 KWh of wind does not equal the same amount of decreased fossil, because the sudden fluctuations make it impossible to constantly increase and decrease fossil fuel. Wind is a scam, but it serves the purpose of the left by making electricity more expensive, which decrease use and economic opportunity, thereby slowing the economy down.
Why would we waste our money on offshore wind?
Because the onshore land near where 80% of the population lives within 100 miles of the coasts for wind is already occupied?
We can't, we can't, we can't. Always with the 'we can't, because'. People would be better served if they activly looked for reasons why something will work, rather than why it won't.
Wind (and renewables in general) only disapoint because we're so used to the 'abundant', high-energy-density, portable, ever-diminishing 'source' of energy called Fossil Fuels.
Wind (and Solars) 'intermittency' and associated problems can be overcom by a 'whole of system' approach. Wind and Solar are well-paired. When it's windy, it's usually cloudy as well, so poor for Solar. When it's sunny, there's usually little wind. They're a great match. In both cases, you can back them up with pumped storage (we've already got a lot of dams). Throw some Geothermal into the mix as well. Add some Nuclear to taste.
Careful, your bias is flapping in the breeze.
Electricity locally is going up by 16%. That's for good old coal-fired power, without any Carbon taxes.