Floating Wind Turbine Platform 228
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."
What about the cost (Score:4, Interesting)
Large areas required (Score:5, Interesting)
Developing Nations (Score:5, Interesting)
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 the real costs will be, too.
Re:What about the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Read article 15min. ago--BS detector still blaring (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is not feasible today (Score:1, Interesting)
They have the platform, deversify! (Score:2, Interesting)
Aside, I'm not so sure about the battery thing, unless they've improved battery technology there is low return on high cost. Hydrogen seems the better storage mechanism. And, uhm, how are they getting the electrcity to the grid if it's out in the middle of the ocean? Do they sail in and out to unload?
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:Large areas required (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This is great until the next Cat 4 Hurricane.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh! Thanks! On the behalf of wind power advocates, thank you for pointing out this potential risk. Somehow we missed this and had not planned for WIND in our wind turbine plants. Cheese, no we must start all over again. Any place where it would never blow? Moon, perhaps? Safe wind power, straight from Moon. Would you like to join our research team?
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:As long as its out there... (Score:2, Interesting)
- solar thermal. A 1 acre platform can produce about 100-500 kW of power, but you will need a steam engine or steam turbine (at this power range and using steam around 300 degrees centigrade, both steam engines and steam turbines are worthy of investigation and have similar efficiencies once you take into account the ability of steam engines to accept saturated steam efficiently and work at less than full throttle efficiently). Small steam machines require tending and maintainance just like their larger cousins in coal plants (or land based solar thermal plants), but they don't get any economy of scale. Setup cost could be reasonable, so long as you avoid expensive or unfit technology (avoid using an organic rankine cycle turbine, and don't use any glass [no mirrors or vacuum tubes around the collectors], as I guarantee that the sea will break them). Cost is probably around $3-5B per GW, but maintainance will be quite steep, probably on the order of 50 cents per kilowatt-hour.
- energy from ocean heat content. Maintainance, as determined from trial land-based installations, is prohibitive. You will also need a massive steam turbine, as the pressure differential is just a few dozen millibars. Efficiencies are on the order of 1-2%, and massive amounts of water must be moved. Maintainance is at least 1 order of magnitude larger than solar thermal for the same power output, and space constraints will limit the effective power to a few MW (for hundreds of millions sunk into the plant - particularly the turbine, no less the platform). Storms also have a tendancy to destroy the pipes used to get the cold water from below. For costs, take the numbers for solar thermal, and multiply them by 10x for both capital and maintainance. That's $30-50B per GW of capacity and about $5 per kilowatt-hour in maintainance and operational expenses.
- aquaculture platform. Now we're getting silly. It's much easier to raise your shrimp and salmon in land-based ponds or in next-to-shore enclosures. That way you can get the food to your animals by truck instead of by supply ship, and operations are much easier than on a cramped platform deck (which wouldn't support a very large pool anyway). As far as farming algea goes, first develop a method to use the algea, and then I'm sure it'll be a whole load cheaper to use fresh water ponds than try growing them in tanks on a platform.
Based on my extensive research, land based solar thermal and conventional wind are the most promising of the renewables (nuclear isn't renewable, though it sure beats organic fossil fuels). Wind is nearly as cheap as conventional power (less than 2x pricier in the USA, and we have no carbon tax). Solar thermal is pricier than wind currently, but I believe that it has more promise because there is far more suitable land for solar than wind, and improved material science (particularly if the stirling engine could ever be perfected, but just better heat transfer liquids, structural materials, and turbines would be a big help). Also, there is more room for cost reduction through more efficient engineering in solar thermal than in wind power, and solar thermal could theoretically scale to the 200MW per turbine range (where the efficiency of scale seems to peter out).
Equations of wind energy storage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Large areas required (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, only the US will have that big of a problem. What america sees as nuclear 'waste' after ONE TIME USE, other countries see it as 'still hot, still dangerous, still full of power, and re-use that "waste" over and over and over resulting in probably 1/8th the amount of true 'waste'.
All that nuclear crap the US government wants to bury under mountains and 'has' already 'stored' in the deeper waters of countries like The Bahamas, coulde have been used maybe 6 more times before it was useless.