Slashdot Log In
Floating Wind Turbine Platform
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:27 PM
from the dust-and-energy-in-the-wind dept.
from the dust-and-energy-in-the-wind dept.
Sterling D. Allan writes "Inventor Tom Lee is nearly ready to strike a deal to install a flotilla of offshore wind turbines, combined with hydrogen-generating capability and battery storage, which he says will enable them to have the consistency needed to be a primary grid energy provider, and not just supplemental to the gird. The floating platform enables them to take the turbines to where the wind blows and birds are few, and people even fewer. His objective in commencing this project 12 years ago was to come up with a power solution for developing nations."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What about the cost (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the cost (Score:5, Funny)
About 540 Energy and 60 Metal IIRC. A little more if you're CORE.
Parent
Re:What about the cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Amortized over the life of a power plant, the startup cost is negligeable.
The real gotcha will be maintenance. What happens when one of God's happy sea creatures swims afoul of the power plant, taking it offline on Super Bowl Sunday? Or more pointedly, foul weather at sea is not like foul weather on land. There's no place to get away from it, except perhaps underwater.
I guess they'll have to have a fleet of submarines for maintenance. Maintenance is where t
Re:What about the cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let that be a lesson for all of us. An "infrastructure" devoted to the elite will simply be destroyed by the majority who are being starved by said elite.
Re:What about the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What about the cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Surface area of the Pacific:
166 million square kilometres, 64 million square miles
Typical size of a wind turbine:
Blade span (total diameter): 200 - 350 feet
Mast height: 150 - 300+ feet
Arranging 4 of these together on a platform the size of a (american) football field (360*160 = 57600 sq. ft.) would mean that you could cover the Pacific with these if you managed to produce a hair under 31 billion platforms...
Let's say you want to have a total of 1000 platforms, each with 4 turbines. This would require (approx) 0.00000322% of the surfacea area of the Pacific. It is unlikely that such turbines would have a measurable effect on global weather patterns.
I'm not trying to flame you here, just want to underscore that the amount of energy contained in global weather patterns and the size of the oceans (from which much of this energy flows from) completely dwarfs almost anything we can realistically throw at it right now. It has been estimated [universetoday.com] that it would require thousands to millions of times our current planetwide energy output to reach a level where weather patterns could be altered.
Parent
Large areas required (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Large areas required (Score:5, Informative)
All the technology to build large and tall platforms, anchor them to the ocean floor, connect them under the sea to the land, disconnect them when a storm is coming so they can be moved out of the way, reconnect them, maintain them, etc. already exists in the oil platform industry.
These things probably are not as tall as oil platforms. They connect to land through cable which is relatively cheap to manufacture and install compared to pipelines which have to be carefully laid on the ocean floor and have to be designed not to leak oil all over the place. Living quarters would be drastically simpler because turbine maintenance takes many fewer workers than oil drilling (Thunder Horse has facilities for 229 workers to be stationed there semi-permanently). They don't need the same level of safety as oil rigs since they are not pumping and storing an environmentally sensitive substance. They don't need all the drilling and pumping equipment that oil rigs do (wind turbines are vastly less costly/complicated than oil rig equipment).
Can't comment on cost/return. Clearly if there's no return they won't get built, but the technology all exists and these things would be much, much cheaper than oil platforms.
Parent
Re:Large areas required (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. Wind turbines need to be spaced at least 5 times the rotordiameter to be cost efficient. Primarily because of the wind shadow behind each turbine, but also because of the increased stress on rotor and tower from turb
Re:Large areas required (Score:3, Informative)
Also, its not 45 patents, its 2 patents that include 45 claims. The number of claims in a patent is effectively meaningless. Its just the list of what the invention consists of. Also remember that this thing includes hy
I don't get it. (Score:4, Funny)
Where are we keeping the real editors?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Funny)
In the real newspapers
Beowulf cluster (Score:4, Funny)
Birds (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if windfarms did pose a danger to birds, the benefits of a clean, sustainable energy source so far outweigh the downside of a few dead pigeons here and there, that it's silly to even contemplate the matter.
Re:Birds (Score:5, Insightful)
The threat isn't as small as a few pigeons, but it is an area where active research in avian behavior could reduce the number of impacts.
There isn't a single "zero impact" energy source. An environmental price for any energy source can be found if you look hard enough. The challenge is learning how to balance our need for energy with the size of the threat to the environment.
Parent
Re:Birds (Score:4, Funny)
Now wait a minute. If it weren't for all those power lines to perch on the birds would have to keep flying until they dropped from exhaustion. :-)
Parent
Developing Nations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Developing Nations (Score:5, Insightful)
You start by not mentioning that France and Japan do it.
Frighteningly, I'm quite serious.
Parent
So that means... (Score:4, Insightful)
in technology terms, you have got nothing.
I was ready to make a deal with a nice Nigerian fellow, but that doesn't mean a darn thing.
Orders of Expense (Score:3, Insightful)
More Expensive: Marine Goods.
Even More Expensive: Aero Goods.
Aero, electronic goods exposed to a marine environment ... Could we make that Monopoly Nuclear running NT too? Now that would be expensive.
Really, who knows, clever people can make anything work.
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Funny)
You, sir, owe me one screen cleaning.
This is not feasible today (Score:5, Informative)
Second, I believe that using a floating platform with very tall (~400 feet or so) structures is asking for trouble. Something floating is far more vulnerable to storms than a securely grounded pile. There must be a good reason it's not being done now.
Thirdly, why have the things so far from shore. Transmission losses (if undersea cables are employed) are large over such distances, and it does take quite a bit of aluminum to make such long wires. If a ship must come to load the hydrogen every once in a while, then you just added a large operating expense (and one of the nice things about wind and solar is very low operating expenses).
So why not stick to tried and true near-shore and land based wind turbines?
Re:This is not feasible today (Score:3, Informative)
True, it is not the most efficient. However it means you can get energy (cracked hydrogen) to inland facilities without building a huge power infrastructure. Trucking the fuel in is not as efficient but sometimes you accept less power later in return for some power now. Remember, "perfection is the enemy of the good."
Second, I believe that using a floating platform with very tall (~400 feet or
As long as its out there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Read article 15min. ago--BS detector still blaring (Score:5, Interesting)
- The submitter is apparently the owner of the site where the article is posted--also of other "Free Energy" and survivalist supply sites.
- The article gives no details about a technology which seems sketchy at best and pure BS at worst. This gap is covered by the ever-popular "U.S. companies had better hurry up, the Europeans and Asians are about to pay me BIG MONEY for my wonderful ideas!" Come on.
- The only Dr. Thomas L. Lee [healthgrades.com] I could find is an MD in Texas, and the only Stanbury Resources [1800-homes-for-sale.com] I found sells real estate in Montana.
- In the final analysis the idea sounds like a 7th-grade science fair project. Does he really think Slashdot readers will think that venture capitalists are lining up around the block to pay for this "idea?"
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, I must have gotten up on the non-gullible side of the bed this morning.Re:Read article 15min. ago--BS detector still blar (Score:3, Informative)
Wind turbines are not generally made from Aluminium. Towers are typically rolled steel, and blades are usually glass fibre or other composite construction. It was estimated some time ago that wind turbines became energy neutral in about four months, including manufacture, transport, construction and desposal. They are essentially extremely energy efficient generators. This is in sharp contrast to PV for example.
Lee (and t
Re:Read article 15min. ago--BS detector still blar (Score:3, Informative)
But I'm not convinced the floating platform idea will work - tall, floating structure = asking for trouble.
a la Total Annihilation: (Score:5, Funny)
This is great until the next Cat 4 Hurricane.. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, if you do not have them connected directly to the grid and generating power that way, then they'd need massive batteries to store energy until they can be shipped elsewhere.
I suppose if they are devoting all their energy towards electrolysis to make hydrogen, that that could be a solution, but I'm not entirely buying the idea.
Re:This is great until the next Cat 4 Hurricane.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is great until the next Cat 4 Hurricane.. (Score:3, Funny)
Kinda missing the point, isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)
If it's for developing nations, why not take it where the wind blows and the birds are many. He could provide power and an unlimited supply of pre-diced stir fry at the same time!
Cheers
-b
Real Advantage - Law of the Sea (Score:5, Interesting)
And if one of our friendly, small, and oh so bribable CAFTA partners such as Costa Rica offers the flag of convenience, guess what? That hydrogen is entering the USA duty free! Don't try to stop it, or you'll end up in a corporate friendly and politically insulated CAFTA court.
The sad part is that just like Sea Launch, it's getting so that you have to move out of the country to avoid all of the hassles and get 'er done. Thus the biggest joke of the recent energy bill. A $500 million grant to pay for people to deal with the nuclear power bureaucrats in Washington so that we might ~think~ about making another nuclear power plant.
(Well, perhaps second biggest after that Alaskan bridge fiasco)
Which brings up a good idea. You might as well cut out all of this hippie wind power BS and build a nuclear power plant out at sea to generate electricity to distill water, split it, and make hydrogen. We must have a spare nuclear aircraft carrier around here somewhere. Sell it to Costa Rica and they can rent it out to "Clean Hydrogen At Sea Corp"
Business method patent pending. Send $100,000 and you can have it.
Re:Real Advantage - Law of the Sea (Score:3, Insightful)
It's what we do with the technology that makes the world better or worse.
Thus I could use technology to mail you a steaming pile of pooh (if I knew your snail mail address), or build a catapult to fling it at you, but I won't to that. I'll just explain that in this ins
Must be an ex-NASA employee ... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing says bogus quite like changing units in mid-sentence.
DOE feasibility study (Score:4, Informative)
Equations of wind energy storage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Equations of wind energy storage. (Score:3, Informative)
Excerpt:
Re:Equations of wind energy storage. (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, it's quite possible for a high pressure system to drop wind speeds all over the UK (And bring in a very cold snap at the same time); not the best scenario for a blackout.
Secondly, the point that I raised about baseload generation was and has not even been addressed. Wind power still gets a 'free ride' at the moment - wheras a gas powered station, for example, can be switched on to provide backup for an unplanned outage elsewhere, a wind farm cannot. So you do indeed need installed nuclear/hydro
Re:Equations of wind energy storage. (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends what you consider trivial. The article I quoted is talking about wind as a source of 20% of our needs. I think most of the arguments against probably break down when you're only talking about 1/5 of the total supply, but organisations such as Porritt's renewables commission find themselves having to argue hard even for that.
Backup doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? Just keep a few backup gas plants around for when the wind doesn't blow.
There is only so much gas in the world. If the gas plant has to operate 1 day per year because there isn't enough wind, than is 364 extra years of gas supplie to run that plant.
Yes you need to maintain that gas plant even when idle, but even with that, I'd prefer to save gas where we can.
Re:It Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Funny)
I remember back in the 70s when Chevron's big solar arrays in Oklahoma were being continuously sabotaged by Greenpeace activists. The National Guard couldn't even hold off those lunatics long enough for Dick Cheney to finish cleaning the baby seals!
When will the insanity stop? When will the multinational megacorporations ever have a chance to be heard?
Parent
Re:It Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's look at how many new refineries have been constructed in the US in the last 30 years. And how many nuclear plants have been constructed in the same timeframe.
Your sarcasm doesn't measure up to reality, does it? The fact is, if the US had been continuing to build out its nuclear power capacity we may not be discussing energy strains the way we are today.
The primary contributors to the crash of oil prices in the mid-1980's was conservation measures combined with the expansion of US nuclear energy.
Conservation will only take you so far. After that, you have to develop new sources.
Parent
Re:It Doesn't Matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, those pesky environmentalists in control of all the oil companies decided that it made more sense to use old, grandfathered refineries than actually make new ones that complied with modern air regulations. The fact that it chokes off supply occassionally and raises the profits is a horrible side-effect for the poor companies.
And how many nuclear plants have been constructed in the same timeframe.
There are certainly many people who have an irrational fear of nuclear power, but I think the nail in the coffin of that particular enterprise was that nuclear wound up being no cheaper than anything else, and every plant would have been losing money if it weren't for the huge government subsidies.
The fact is, if the US had been continuing to build out its nuclear power capacity we may not be discussing energy strains the way we are today.
Indeed, and had we been continuing to build out wind and solar power, we would be even better off than with nuclear! But of course nobody is protesting wind and solar power, I wonder why we haven't invested in those with half the gusto we've spent trying to find a few million nonreplaceable barrels of oil off the coast of Florida? I've never heard of anyone getting sick from living next to a windmill.
Conservation will only take you so far. After that, you have to develop new sources.
Indeed -- and building more oil refineries is not "new sources". Drilling in Alaska, drilling off Florida, drilling anywhere is not "new sources". Call me when ConocoPhilips builds their first tidal generator in the Gulf of Mexico, and then I'll shed a tear for the Cato institute bravely fighting the environmental lobby that has been holding us back from any "new sources" of energy. I mean, it's not like we've had over 30 years to work on this stuff.
Parent
More Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
I can't take anything you write seriously.
You are so [bbc.co.uk] full [electricityforum.com] of shit that you can't escape your own narrow-minded rhetoric [oldhamadvertiser.co.uk].
The ones I've cited were just the first three [google.com] entries.
Parent
Alternative viewpoint. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of blaming the relatively weak and powerless environmentalists (how many seats does the Green party have in our beloved Congress?), maybe you should consider that Texaco, Unocal, Chevron, etc, don't exactly want to see cheap and safe nuclear power crushing their sale of natural gas/coal. It's also more than likely that by keeping refining capacity at artifically low levels, that they can string along the public for a longer period of time on a dwindling supply of oil.
"Your sarcasm doesn't measure up to reality, does it? The fact is, if the US had been continuing to build out its nuclear power capacity we may not be discussing energy strains the way we are today."
It's far more likely that a paranoid public, feeding on information from hyped up reports from 3-Mile island, is taking a "not in my backyard" approach to this.
Think hard.
How much power does the environmental lobby really have in this country?
Facts:
1. No Kyoto Treaty
2. Current administration/party in power refuses to recognize global warming, and went as far as to hire a guy to CENSOR reports on this topic.
3. Scaled back clean air regulations.
4. Not a SINGLE Green Party Senator (check out the Bundestag for comparison)
5. Massive subsidies for an energy sector that's been posting record profits.
Parent
Re:Alternative viewpoint. (Score:3, Insightful)
But they'd have to pay for those new plants. They don't want to do that. The reason no new nuclear plants have been built isn't just because of regulation (though that's a convenient excuse for them to give) - it's because they aren't that profitable.
Re:Gelling and Spammar (Score:3, Funny)
Time to change overlords again? Pardon me whilst I gird my lions.