New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal In the Nation (bloomberg.com) 154
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state's plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark's Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state's 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York's ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. The contracted wind farms will be completed by 2024, he said. Based on cost estimates from BloombergNEF, the projects may be valued at more than $5 billion.
Pending permits (Score:5, Insightful)
Construction will begin in the early 2020s pending permits
Which means its all over when some NIMBY on Long Island sues over his view.
Those guys are gone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is a bit short on detail, but will they even be visible from land? And is there any legal grounds on which such a NIMBY might avoid having their case thrown out immediately?
Re: (Score:1)
You betcha they are going to sue. I cant say about the turbines, but they have to bring the transmission line in somewhere. I'm a power system engineer and I'v done plenty of work all over NY state, and coincidentally, was was just out on long island. Roughly the top half of the island is served from only one end and is just 13kV, and it NEEDS to be 69kV. In hot summer weather, incadence bulbs notesly dim. Real third world stuff. And it is just impossible for LIPA to even upgraded an existing line, ov
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"4. "Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns." Tucker Carlson, Aug. 9, 2014 Pants on Fire"
Accidental deaths of Children by firearms in 2018: 73
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Accidental deaths of Children via drowning (no, not in bathtubs, but that's just a figure of speech here): 148
https://www.cpsc.gov/content/l... [cpsc.gov]
Pools an spas are about twice as deadly as firearms for kids in a given year. Do we want to ban pools and spas?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll not even go into the fallacy of relying on data from only one year. If you actually read the article you posted on pool drownings it only covers a three month period, not a full year. The article about accidental deaths of children references "at least" 73 cases, is only referring to accidental deaths, and doesn't cite any statistics. If you actually read the article the point of it seems to be more about whether or not the gun owner should be held responsible over the accidental death of a child.
Re: (Score:1)
Wind can't replace Indian Point (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A capacity factor has nothing to do with capacity.
If the wind is right it easy reaches that capacity, or even exceeds it drastically.
Perhaps you want to read up again what a capacity factor is and what you calculate with it if you actually want/need to calculate something.
Re: (Score:3)
You REALLY like to be an idiot, don't you? Capacity factor [wikipedia.org] says that, on average, you'll get X% out of the potential generation. For nuclear, it's up around 95-98%. For wind, it's around 30% to 35%. Meaning if you want 1000 MW of actual power, you should plan on installing close to 3500 MW of capacity - so you'll usually have that power available.
You're just hunting around to score points. and just continuing to show your own ignorance. Give it up - you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you are the idiot here.
And your numbers are wrong :P
Perhaps you want to reread your previdous post to which I answered.
Hint: you are mixing up MW with MWh ... idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - and how do you relate the average output to the peak capability? HINT: it's two words, one is capacity, the other is factor.
Wrong.
For a 10MW turbine rated for 8m/sec windspeed, it will produce 10MW at 8m/sec wind speed. Woops that was so easy again. As it is most likely rated for a top wind speed of somewhat like 100km/h, 130km/h gusts, that would be: 30m/sec the theoretical upper limit would be something like 160MW. Obviously you don't let it rotate so quick and turn the blades out of the wind.
You si
Re: (Score:2)
CF does not imply an average over time.
It implies an integral over time.
Why are you using terms you don't grasp?
The powerplant in question is rated for 1700MW at a certain wind speed.
And sure as hell is ice cold, at thatnwind speed, it will produce the rated power. Your stupid CF does not change anything about that. And then again, if the wind speed doubkes, it produces 8 times the power, fuck your CF.
Go back to 8th grade when integral and differential calculations got introduced.
Hint: learn the difference
Re: (Score:2)
CF does not imply an average over time. It implies an integral over time.
An average *is* by definition an integral measure (I'm not sure if I got the English term correct, though).
Re: (Score:2)
The idiot above implies that the CF is reducing the peak capacity of the plant, which it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity is a similar concept to the 300 HP car at 5250 RPM as you stated. Wind turbines are rated with a power output at a specific wind speed.
What you also need to know is the utilisation of the wind turbine to know how much power the wind turbine is actually producing. At an instant, the utilisation can be 0% to 100% of the capacity so there is no point in using an average yearly rating for a power grid what manages power in the order of minutes.
Next you will be saying that solar can never reach 100% cap
Re: (Score:2)
You REALLY like to be an idiot, don't you?
Oh, the irony...
For nuclear, it's up around 95-98%.
Except the plant debated in this thread has a 73% lifetime capacity factor.
For wind, it's around 30% to 35%. Meaning if you want 1000 MW of actual power, you should plan on installing close to 3500 MW of capacity - so you'll usually have that power available.
Offshore wind with 30-35% would be atrocious and uneconomical to build. Today you're looking at 45-60% as your goals for new offshore. New York seems to get ~42% figures. Not great, not terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Today you're looking at 45-60% as your goals for new offshore. New York seems to get ~42% figures. Not great, not terrible.
Citation needed. US and UK both average below 40% [wikipedia.org]. But States often way overestimate their own gains (like assuming pension plans will return 9% interest), in this case estimating much more wind capacity than has been achieved in the US or the UK. And if it was 42%, then it's going to generate 700 MW on average - still well below that touted 1700 MW of capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing capacity (capability) with utilisation. It is like saying a car has a top speed of 150 MPH, that does not mean that the car is always driven at 150 MPH.
It will likely consume lots of fossil fuels, too. (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't forget that a huge amount of energy derived from fossil fuels will likely go into building these wind turbines, too. The raw materials will likely be mined using diesel and gasoline powered equipment. The materials will need to be transported long distances, again likely using fossil fuel powered vehicles and ships. The refining and processing of the materials will likely be coal or natural gas powered. The construction equipment will likely require fossil fuels, too. The operation and maintenance wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By your logic we'll never wean ourselves off of fossil fuels because we currently can't produce the equipment that will allow us to get rid of fossil fuels, without fossil fuels. What a sad life it must be, living in such terrible pessimism.
At the pace we are going we will in fact not ever wean ourselves from fossil fuels.
https://business.financialpost... [financialpost.com]
University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. âoeThere are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.â On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.
If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.
If we assume that the average operational lifespan of those solar panels and wind turbines are 30 years then this means keeping that same pace indefinitely, and that does not include any growth in our energy production.
I believe that at least in the USA we have enough industrial capacity to get the nation to zero carbon by 2050 using nuclear power. It would require a decision by the powers t
Re: (Score:2)
If we assume that the average operational lifespan of those solar panels and wind turbines are 30 years then this means keeping that same pace indefinitely, and that does not include any growth in our energy production.
What same pace are you talking about? For example, the double-digit percentage of increase of annual PV installations, 30% on average? The world already has around 500 GW of cumulative PV capacity. "Keeping the same pace" means reaching current average global electricity generation purely by 15% capacity factor PV around 2032. Sometime by 2040, you've significantly exceeded total energy requirements of an electrified society.
I believe that at least in the USA we have enough industrial capacity to get the nation to zero carbon by 2050 using nuclear power. It would require a decision by the powers that be that getting to zero carbon by 2050 is very important, and widespread public support.
You could do that using nuclear power. Or you could do that using solar power and w
Re: (Score:1)
What same pace are you talking about?
1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity in the USA every three weeks. Or, 1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear per day in the world per day.
For example, the double-digit percentage of increase of annual PV installations, 30% on average? The world already has around 500 GW of cumulative PV capacity. "Keeping the same pace" means reaching current average global electricity generation purely by 15% capacity factor PV around 2032. Sometime by 2040, you've significantly exceeded total energy requirements of an electrified society.
Is that reaching the rate specified by the article? I doubt it. I believe people are not understanding the magnitude of the problem.
You could do that using nuclear power.
Yes, you could.
Or you could do that using solar power and wind power.
No, you can't.
Or all three at once.
Yes, you can.
None of it will happen without support. All of it will happen with public support.
It won't happen without nuclear power in the mix because without nuclear power there is not enough industrial capacity in the world to meet the required production. It won't happen without nuclear p
Re: (Score:2)
1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity in the USA every three weeks. Or, 1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear per day in the world per day.
But you were talking about wind turbines and solar panels, so I'm not sure how this could be a response to my question about what specific pace of wind and solar power deployment you were talking about.
Is that reaching the rate specified by the article? I doubt it.
You don't have to "doubt it"; solar generation increase between 2017 and 2018 was from 435 TWh/y to 570 TWh/y. These 135 TWh/y correspond to the average output of seventeen 1 GW nuclear units with a 90% capacity factor, so that's your one reactor every three weeks. This figure has been robustly increasing by
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, if only the amount of energy that went into manufacturing a wind turbine, and its energy output were not unknowable facts, forever beyond the grasp all human kith and kin! Then we might not have to aimlessly speculate about whether they might ever turn an energy-profit!
Oh... wait. The energy pay-back time for wind turbines is five to eight months [sciencedaily.com], call it six as a round number. Then they operate for 20-25 more years.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, let's look at the energy payback periods for various energy sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear pays back it's energy debt in 2 months, then it goes on to run for 60 more years. Nuclear has an energy return on investment that is at least 75, compared to off shore wind at 16.
Just for good measure, let's consider carbon footprint. What does the IPCC say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Interesting, nuclear power has a carbon footprint identical, or nearly so, to that of wind.
How safe are t
Re: (Score:2)
The EROI figures are 1) largely somewhat inaccurate guesswork, as evidenced by spreads of various studies, and 2) almost immaterial in practice, as opposed to academical masturbation over whether 100 is better than 20 or not - especially if you don't even know if the 100 figure hasn't been overvalued and the 20 figure undervalued, as per point 1). Also the real world experience betrays their disconnect from reality.
Mortality rates are going to significantly depend on all the things you count into it. The pa
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear pays back it's energy debt in 2 months, then it goes on to run for 60 more years. Nuclear has an energy return on investment that is at least 75, compared to off shore wind at 16.
By the way, the Weissbach study you're referencing is total bullshit. For example for solar power [rameznaam.com], it assumes 50% curtailment (5% in reality today), it assumes 2005-level energy expenditures for PV panels (they've been slashed by a factor of several), it assumes placing the PV plant in Germany (average return in a random populated location in the world would be higher). Feel free to dissect the problem with it in other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
1700/2000 = 85% done with that ONE project. Your claim that the remaining 15% will be heavy pollution is without any evidence. 300 mv is doable via importation or other means, including tidal by NYC. Should you prove right and they decide to use fossil fuels, Natural Gas it the obvious choice, and for 300 MV, should produce about 117 pounds of C02.
Unreliability is the problem, not the definite prediction. It is caused NOT by the renewable energy sources but instead by stupid decisions made long ago to ma
Re: (Score:3)
You are mixing up capacity with actual generation. Are you aware that wind has a low capacity factor? So that 1700 would be closer to an unreliable 700. Sometimes the wind turbines will produce 1700 MW's, other times they produce 0.
The major issue you are missing is that New York is replacing clean energy with clean energy. They should be replacing dirty energy with clean energy. Replacing Indian point with renewables is a terrible idea because New York will still be using fossil fuels. Shutdown all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1700 MW's of intermittent wind will not offset the Indian Point nuclear plant shutdown (2000 MW).
Yeah I know, it's horrible how there's only a single project underway. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty hard to build new nuclear though. It's not very economical, it's hard to find a good spot and get all the permits, and of course NIMBYs.
1700MW is only the start, it's not the maximum capacity of the available offshore wind resources.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's just as easy as in SimCity. Drop some wind turbines here. Click in a couple of nuclear power plants over there. It's so simple to do!
In many ways it is that simple to do.
There are people in the nuclear power industry just waiting to get permission to go ahead on building a new power plant. Once the powers that be give this permission the workers, materials, and eventually the power plant, just appear. The materials and skilled labor needed to do a very large portion of a nuclear power plant is no different than that of a coal or natural gas power plant. If these people weren't building a nuclear power plant then they'd be building som
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, we’ll hold off on everything else for the next 20-50 years.
These are 10MW turbines, which generally have capacity factors of around 65-70%. As part of a balanced system, it is good policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, weâ(TM)ll hold off on everything else for the next 20-50 years.
So, to be in support of more nuclear means being in opposition of everything else? Why would you think that?
These are 10MW turbines, which generally have capacity factors of around 65-70%. As part of a balanced system, it is good policy.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I know it's Wikipedia but they give 35% to 40%, which is a long way from 65%
What's the energy payback period on these off shore windmills? Again I give Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we should put those windmills on shore where they can give an EROEI of about 50 instead of off shore where they give maybe 20. While we build those windmills on
Re: Wind can't replace Indian Point (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The capacity factor of wind power varies a lot depending on location and on the type of turbine used. The UK has lifetime capacity factor figures for each of their offshore wind parks, and they vary from 35% or so, to 55%.
I found a listing of those numbers and none of them exceed 50%.
http://energynumbers.info/uk-o... [energynumbers.info]
Build an offshore wind park in a good spot, using the latest turbines which are higher and can operate an a wider range of wind conditions, and you might well get up to 65%.
How many of these "good spots" exist? I'm not going to argue that there are not individual windmills that can get above 65%, or even certain wind farms. What makes windmills a good energy policy is an average over the fleet. If this average cannot exceed 50% then that might mean a different decision on wind as good energy policy if the average was over 65%.
These things are also still becoming more maintenance friendly, with the turbines themselves requiring less of it, and the help of special support vessels, which improves the ROI / EROEI further. It's pointless to look at a single figure averaged over older and newer installations.
Sure, better maintenance routines, improved technolog
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, better maintenance routines, improved technology, economy of scale, and so forth, could certainly improve the return on investment. What happens with growth in wind power is that as the fleet of windmills grows they will be put in lower and lower quality areas to collect wind. I have my doubts that the improvements like those you gave can keep up with the losses from growing into areas with less wind to collect.
These economies and improved construction methods could also mean that more good spots for wind farms will open up, where it was hitherto not economical to build one. Not that long ago, offshore wind power wasn't deemed profitable anywhere except a few rare spots.
Re: (Score:2)
I found a listing of those numbers and none of them exceed 50%.
This doesn't seem to include the new Hywind Scotland farm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
global average capacity factor for offshore wind is about 35%.
Offshore wind capacity globally increased from 15 GW in the beginning of 2018 to 22 GW at the end of 2018 [renewablesnow.com] and generated around 65 TWh throughout 2018. [iea.org] So the global capacity factor is somewhere between 35% and 50%. It would only be 35% if the whole 5 GW increase was installed in the very beginning of 2018, which is very implausible. Middle-of-the-road estimate gives you 43 %.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offshore produces more power than onshore, and that also more stable. No idea why you want to dispute that. Did you manipulate the wikipedia articles before linking to them?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would help if we base numbers on the scientific literature and not from random websites where some have an obvious bias because they belong to an industry association:
Nuclear: 14, Wind: 18-20, PV: 10 (Energy Policy 2014, 64:141-152)
Nuclear: 15, Wind: 18, PV: 7 (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2010, 1185:102-118)
Nuclear: 14, Wind: 5-18, PV: 4-25 (Nature Energy 2018, 3:334-340)
Re: (Score:1)
The real solution is no income taxes at all. Period. Repeal 16. FairTax.
And in 15 years (Score:1, Flamebait)
when they all start needing maintenance / replacement, the providers will declare bankruptcy, walk away and let the public fund the cleanup.
Re:And in 15 years (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a lot of stupid to pack into one sentence.
First off, why would a company "declare bankruptcy" when offered servicing contracts?
Do you even realize that this is how all companies that actually make industrial systems work? They get paid for building/making it, then they can bid on further work in maintaining it (usually from a favored bidder status).
Do you imagine that the fact that mechanical stuff occasionally needs repair is something not generally known, nor taken into account?
Do you think that wind turbines are created through the Dark Arts and their design and operation are arcane unknowable things? There are many manufacturers of turbines, they know how to service them, even ones built by somebody else. Remember -- big contract, retooling (if needed) is not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. Many companies will take a hit on their profit margin on the initial install and then make up for it on the annual maintenance fees.
Re: (Score:2)
These are essentially floating wind turbines. Some of the foundation designs actually allow tow-back to port for servicing and decommissioning. These are pretty easy problems to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time turbines are due for replacement, the tech would have moved on so much that their generating capability will have multiplied many times. So "the providers will declare bankruptcy" is complete bollox
Re: (Score:2)
He said providers, and the windmills in Texas are not off-shore.
Re: (Score:2)
...factors that have allowed Texas to excel so far....
Per capita GDP of Texas has never once been as high as that of California in any year.
Re: (Score:1)
...factors that have allowed Texas to excel so far....
Per capita GDP of Texas has never once been as high as that of California in any year.
Per capita GDP of Texas has been typically higher than California from statehood up to the dotcom boom.
Source. [opendatanetwork.com]
Two more for a more raw comparison but lacking an API:
California. [countryeconomy.com] Texas. [countryeconomy.com]
As a data scientist I am fed up with Californian's and their reality distortion field bullshit. Their state-level version of nationalism and sheer volume of idiots drowns out all other voices. The terrible stereotypes of American chauvinism and ignorance is a direct result of Californication whereby the worst of one state has be
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita GDP of Texas has been typically higher than California from statehood up to the dotcom boom.
Interesting. Given the decline of the California economy, and the growth of the Texas economy, when can we expect those lines to cross again? Should I be looking at a calendar, or a clock?
Never happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar power is just a proxy for natural gas.
https://powerpastimpossible.or... [powerpastimpossible.org]
Aren't renewables the future of energy?
Renewables certainly are part of a sound energy future. The federal government projects they will supply about 14 percent of our energy in 2050. For renewables such as wind and solar to grow, they need natural gas as a partner â" furnishing a reliable, quick-ramping fuel source when itâ(TM)s cloudy or thereâ(TM)s not enough breeze to turn a windmill. Natural gas checks the boxes.
There you go, an endorsement of wind and solar energy from the natural gas industry.
Personally I believe we can avoid this burning of natural gas but we will need to build third generation nuclear power plants now while we do research in fourth generation nuclear power. Fourth generation nuclear promises to offer the ability to load follow, meaning it can allow for the use of wind power with little or no need for natural
Re: (Score:2)
With nukes, you generally can't turn them down much (not at all in GB, and only an average of ~25% in France which is pretty sophisticated). And coal can be fairly slow load following.
GB's last major outage (500k users load shed) was caused by a nuke and then a coal plant tripping out. I'm not aware of any load shedding caused by renewables intermittency in the GB grid. Operators know about it and plan for it. Nukes are definitely useful but NOT a panacea.
Yes, storage makes and will make a huge differen
Re: (Score:2)
With nukes, you generally can't turn them down much (not at all in GB, and only an average of ~25% in France which is pretty sophisticated). And coal can be fairly slow load following.
We can't turn the wind and sun up and down like we wish either. So, what's the point you want to make again?
Yes, storage makes and will make a huge difference, but enough of the conspiracy theories over smart meter cutoffs and drooling over nukes please.
Ah, I see. So, we can use batteries with wind and solar but not with nuclear? Or coal? Regardless of the primary source of our energy supply we will need a means to dial the supply up and down to match demand. Right now we are using natural gas as the primary means to do this. In places where natural gas is not so readily available, or hydro is readily available, we use fuel oil and hydro. With
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't crank things down on demand then you can't crank them up either (and/or have to throw away lots of energy).
In that respect nukes and solar/wind are similar: that is my point. You need something else in the mix to make a functioning grid with them.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
I know civilian nuclear plants generally run at 100% all the time, but I believe that is because those plants run the most efficiently at 100%, and the demand on the grid exists, so they just supply it.
Since the US grid is huge and has a l
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK only one of our nukes (Sizewell B) is capable of load following AFAIK, but it never has.
In the French fleet the limit the things can be turned down without unpleasant effects ("Xenon poisoning" IIRC) is about 50% for a new load of fuel, 0% when near expired, thus ~25% overall. Which limits nukes to serving ~75% of peak load since they would not be able to dial back far enough at minimum load.
Other designs may be different, but less good for civilian use, for example.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
Civilian and naval reactors are completely different things. Completely different technology, completly different way of operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To make storage useful the wind plant would need 3 times as big.
And you would need a storage that can store at lest half a days production.
That plant is to small to need/have use for storage unless for frequency stabilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't happen, won't work, will be zillions over budget.
Citation needed. Ørsted has built dozens of offshore wind farms already [orsted.com], so if you're right, there should be no shortage of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
you are ignorant of how power generation works. There are plants on standby that are fired up if say nuke plant goes offline or peak load happens. that's already in place, has been for decades.
Having wind generation where it's nearly always windy is fine, the older fossil methods can be brought online to take up slack. Much less pollution is made doing so.
No problem
I sure hope they're visible from (Score:1)
Trump Tower or whichever prison the cheeto in chief ends up in. Maybe the sound they make will give him cancer, too.
Does he still get Secret Service protection if he spends the rest of his life in jail? What about the rest of his family?
How is that New York? (Score:2)
So, why is NY involved?
Re: (Score:1)
You mean quite unsuccessful. This company is banking on governments with new projects, once they are built they windmills have lasted 5 years on average in other places in NY and Europe. Governments abandon the projects once the maintenance comes in because it's near impossible to maintain at sea and the material physics just isn't there yet to have it run unattended for more than a year.
Re: (Score:2)
I may have misunderstood, but please show me any stats supporting your apparent claim that UK-based wind turbines are lasting only 5 years.
See here:
https://www.renewableuk.com/pa... [renewableuk.com]
or from the appropriate UK authorities (BEIS and the Crown Estate),
or from one of the operators:
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/o... [ecotricity.co.uk]
Indeed I have visited some of these turbines more than 5 years ago and they are still there!
Some from another operator near one of the sites I visited have been upgraded; far from being abandoned.
So I d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strange,
I did not assume that the difference between west Europes first world nations and USA is so big. We can maintain or wind mills just fine.
As that project is partly conducted by a danish consortium I believe your windmills will last 30 years and beyond, just like the ones in Europe ...
Re: (Score:3)
Because they actually have history bulding these things in Europe quiet successfully....
Yes, quite successfully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I can't rip on wind power too hard while living in tornado alley... I mean, the wind corridor. I see windmills everyday, and more of them being moved down the interstate everyday. They make a lot of money and I expect that they will play a big part in getting the US off of fossil fuels. What bothers me though is the over reliance on wind, and putting windmills where they are not likely to make a good return on their investment.
Look at the chart her
Re: (Score:2)
Off shore wind gets an EROEI of maybe 20, more likely less. Put them on shore, in places suited for wind, and the EROEI can get above 50.
Why you are always mixing up on shore with off shore is beyond me.
If I understand the term EROEI correctly it means: energy returned for energy input, right?
So a windmill has its construction costs in terms of energy recovered in 5 month. Lets make it 6 for easier calculation. It runs 30 years, that is 60 times 6 month. Subtracting one period makes that 59. So EROEI is clo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a talk on energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) that looks very grim.
http://wiseresponse.org.nz/201... [wiseresponse.org.nz]
About half way through she gets to the meat of the issue, how EROEI affects our economy.
EROEI of 70 -> ECONOMIC BOOM!!! (Where the USA was in the 1950s and 1960s)
EROEI of 20 -> Moderate economic growth. (Where we are now or will soon be.)
EROEI of 5 -> Slow decline in the economy.
EROEI of 2 -> Rapid decline in the economy.
She ends on a downer, saying essentially we need to manage the decline and adapt to this "new normal" of energy poverty. She leaves out a very important energy source that can bring this EROEI of 70 that we had in the 1950s.
Look at this chart and locate the energy sources available to us with an EROEI approximating 70.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The energy sources with an EROEI of 50 or higher are nuclear, hydro, and onshore wind.
New York's plan of offshore wind will bring the state into a state somewhere between a moderate growth and a slow decline. New York is on the path outlined in that video, ignoring nuclear power and bringing the economy to it's knees.
Some other places to find what energy sources provide the EROEI we need.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
https://www.world-nuclear.org/... [world-nuclear.org]
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/0... [rameznaam.com]