A Turbine Prototype Just Broke a 24-Hour Wind Power World Record (electrek.co) 272
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Siemens Gamesa's 14-222 DD offshore wind turbine prototype has, according to the Spanish-German wind giant today, set a world record for the most power output by a single wind turbine in a 24-hour period: 359 megawatt-hours. This would be enough energy, according to the company, for a mid-sized electric vehicle -- think a Tesla Model 3 -- to drive around 1.12 million miles (1.8 million km). Siemens Gamesa's huge wind turbine achieved this power output milestone only 10 months after it produced its first electricity and delivered it to the grid at the test center in Osterild, Denmark.
The SG 14-222 DD is a 14 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine with a capacity of up to 15 MW with Power Boost. It features a 222-meter (728 feet) diameter rotor, 108-meter-long (354-feet-long) B108 blades that are cast in a single piece and can now be recycled, and a swept area of 39,000 square meters (419,792 square feet). The SG 14-222 DD can provide enough energy to power around 18,000 households annually. In June, Siemens Gamesa was awarded a firm order for 60 of its SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbines, which will be installed at the 882-megawatt (MW) Moray West offshore wind farm in Scotland. It will be the first installation of this model. Siemens Gamesa writes: "By increasing the rotor diameter to 222 meters with 108 meter-long blades, the SG 14-222 DD delivers more than 25% [annual energy production] AEP compared to its predecessor."
The SG 14-222 DD is a 14 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine with a capacity of up to 15 MW with Power Boost. It features a 222-meter (728 feet) diameter rotor, 108-meter-long (354-feet-long) B108 blades that are cast in a single piece and can now be recycled, and a swept area of 39,000 square meters (419,792 square feet). The SG 14-222 DD can provide enough energy to power around 18,000 households annually. In June, Siemens Gamesa was awarded a firm order for 60 of its SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbines, which will be installed at the 882-megawatt (MW) Moray West offshore wind farm in Scotland. It will be the first installation of this model. Siemens Gamesa writes: "By increasing the rotor diameter to 222 meters with 108 meter-long blades, the SG 14-222 DD delivers more than 25% [annual energy production] AEP compared to its predecessor."
Impressive (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only does it have 222m diameter blades, it is an offshore turbine too so operates in a harsh environment. Their website claims it operates in all wind conditions, no stopping for high winds.
Offshore and with the rotor 150m off the ground the wind is going to be very consistent. We need to build and deploy these things as fast as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to build and deploy these things as fast as possible.
They've been building them for years, this one is just a bit bigger than the previous generation (25% more output).
Re: (Score:2)
Would this thing survive strong hurricanes, like Ida and Ina recently?
Re:Impressive (Score:4, Funny)
Would this thing survive strong hurricanes, like Ida and Ina recently?
I don't think they have those in Scotland.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they have those in Scotland.
Sometimes they do:
Hurricane Katia [wikipedia.org]
Hurricane Bawbag [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are European windstorms. They're cold core systems, obviously, but they do produce hurricane force winds. The North Sea is not exactly a placid body of water.
Re: (Score:2)
They do occasionally have extreme weather, but the web page for the turbine claims it will operate in all weathers and all wind speeds. Presumably they feather the blades and have a mechanical brake for such situations.
Re:Impressive (Score:5, Informative)
Likely. They can reduce them to zero output by blade pitch and everything besides the blades has very little wind resistance. Just to give you an idea, the nacelle at the top is "lightweight" at 500t (metric). This is not some ElCheapo wood building.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many people have seriously considered whether enough turbines in the right areas could suck enough energy out of a developing storm to slow its growth into a high category hurricane. We see how quickly the power of a hurricane diminishes once it hits land. Perhaps barrier strings of turbines could protect land.
At the moment, engineers are designing for efficiency in low winds, with the aim to extract as much energy as possible from a calm environment. If we had suitable ecologically friendly
Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many people have seriously considered whether enough turbines in the right areas could suck enough energy out of a developing storm to slow its growth into a high category hurricane.
No one.
Hurricanes form in open sea.
Turbines have heights below 300m
Hurricanes have heights of 30,000m.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
160MPH winds would likely be beyond the design limits for the blades. They might not delaminate, but I would expect micro fractures would be likely. Hard to know if they would then be taken out of service or allowed to operate to destruction.
Under 150MPH is likely not a problem for the blades.
Wind shear could be another issue altogether though.
Re: (Score:2)
Tropical cyclones are probably outside of the design parameters. Also, because they are a bit unlikely near Scotland, even with climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm reading this right, they're only thinking about it:
https://www.doi.gov/pressrelea... [doi.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno if they would use offshore wind down near the gulf, Texas has a lot of room for onshore wind which is cheaper to install and maintain.
If I'm reading this right, they're only thinking about it:
https://www.doi.gov/pressrelea... [doi.gov]
No one ever seems to discuss the Great Lakes for these things. Is there some reason why "off-shore" wouldn't include them?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.greatlakesnow.org/... [greatlakesnow.org]
I guess, similar to the gulf, the added costs of offshore wind are only justified if there is no land nearby to put the wind turbines on, which is more of an issue in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what is the impact of something like a CAT3/4/5 tropical cyclone on them? Will it trash them entirely?
It's always possible. They'll be designed for very strong winds but nothing is unbreakable.
The best solution is not to build them in places which have almost-yearly cyclones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Their website claims that they are able to withstand all weather.
Holy Shit That's Big! (Score:5, Interesting)
They can "single-cast" 108-meter-long (354-feet-long) turbine blades.
That's freaky large for casting.
I'm working on a graphic to compare it to the St. Louis arch, which it will tower over (630 feet, 200+ meters).
Here's a real photo of it rather than the Photoshopped ocean excitement image:
https://www.windpowermonthly.c... [windpowermonthly.com]
What we want to know... (Score:2)
Sure, but how long will it keep the lights on at the Library of Congress?
Recycleable, but will it be? (Score:2)
It's neat that theoretically they can dissolve the resin again to recover the fiberglass and carbon fiber, but if it's cheaper to landfill than actually do it they will do that unless contractually obligated to recycle.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it can be recycled, which opens the possibility of requiring recycling. That's better than before where burying them was the only option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What bad thing will happen if we bury fiberglass?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that there's anything terrible that will happen, but if there's a way to recycle it without causing problems, that's obviously better than landfilling, right?
drive around 1.12 million miles (1.8 million km) (Score:2)
and how many LoC aisles can it power for a day?
Japanese monster movie (Score:2)
All I can think of when I read this is "Gamera".
Have they solved the leading-edge erosion problem? (Score:2)
My understanding is that leading edge erosion is a huge problem with windmills. I imagine it is an even bigger problem for offshore wind farms, both because of the environment and the maintenance difficulties. Have they found ways to reduce or eliminate it?
Re:Have they solved the leading-edge erosion probl (Score:5, Informative)
https://weatherguardwind.com/l... [weatherguardwind.com]
Not an insurmountable problem, but a maintenance cost, and a possible issue of the blades being manufactured with less leading edge protection than they ought to be because customers are not thinking ahead at the time of purchase.
Nice offset (Score:2)
Considering all the fossil fuels Musk burns [nytimes.com] flying and yachiting all over the world, this renewable energy will come in handy.
Re:rather small and useless (Score:5, Informative)
cost per MW is still a lot small than nuclear, thanks for playing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its also a good option for smaller island countries.
Most small island countries are tropical.
The tropics have weak winds most of the time, with occasional severe storms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is off-shore and 200m up. Unless the sun goes cold, it is windy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:rather small and useless (Score:5, Informative)
What is it? Cost per MW? And what's nuclear's?
The cost of wind power in the UK is about 5 cents/kwh.
The cost of nuclear power from the Hinkley nuclear plant is about 30 cents/kwh.
Hinkley was plagued by massive cost overruns and delays that tripled the price, but there is no reason to believe that "Next time will be different."
what's each product's carbon footprint?
Compared to coal and gas, both are negligible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is it? Cost per MW? And what's nuclear's?
The cost of wind power in the UK is about 5 cents/kwh.
The cost of nuclear power from the Hinkley nuclear plant is about 30 cents/kwh.
Hinkley was plagued by massive cost overruns and delays that tripled the price, but there is no reason to believe that "Next time will be different."
what's each product's carbon footprint?
Compared to coal and gas, both are negligible.
All of this is true but the big problem in the UK is the reliability of the wind. Most of last month we were getting well under 10MW out of the whole system, often less than 5. At the moment paying 25c extra seems worth it to know that it's there when you need it.
We've badly messed up our energy policy and wind just isn't the answer. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where your numbers come from, but offshore wind auctions in the UK last month came in around 27 GBP per MWh.
Hinkley Point C is around 150 GBP per MWh, but it's hard to pin down exactly because it rises with inflation and inflation is pretty high right now. I'd say 130 at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
Hinkley Point cost is £92.50/MWh or 9.3p/kWh.
£92.50/MWh was the PROJECTED price at the beginning of the project.
That was before the decade of delays and 200% cost overruns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is important to mention that operational reserves are necessa
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, extremely low.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] .03 vs .04 for wind not divided by type.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched sources and didn't update the quoted numbers. That source has .15 for wind and .09 for nuclear. This was the original source:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Given that a nuke runs 100% of the time end never goes down without warning and then does not stay down for a while. And nukes do not continue to draw power for a long time after a SCRAM and do not blow up if that external power fails for too long. No, no, nukes do not do that at all...
Seriously.
At what is that nonsense about needing 2x as many? You start to replace them slowly by a newer (!) generation 20 years in or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately, the answer to nuclear power is more research and more generations of reactors. Preferably ones that can be made somewhere that can be inspected, and shipped on site, to reduce the number of issues that can crop up. Ideally liquid fueled, so a SCRAM condition causes the fuel to all flow to smaller, subcritical containers, where it can stay indefinitely.
Bonus points if there is a natural gas reactor on site, just to allow the nuke plant to cold-start. Finland does this, where a relatively small
Re: (Score:2)
At what is that nonsense about needing 2x as many? You start to replace them slowly by a newer (!) generation 20 years in or so.
That's what they said about nuclear, but now all the old nuclear plants are reaching their end of life and new improved designs are being held up.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that a nuke runs 100% of the time end never goes down without warning and then does not stay down for a while.
Tell that to the French.
Re:rather small and useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:rather small and useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a thought: let's build wind turbines in windy places, solar panels in sunny places, and nuclear reactors anywhere they make sense.
Whoa whoa whoa.
It isn’t immediately apparent which sides are “us” and “them” in your tripartite solution. Please adhere to the use of tribalistic argumentation while refraining from suggestions that exhibit any amount of nuance. We won’t tolerate rational thought like yours around here!
Re: (Score:2)
and nuclear reactors anywhere they make sense.
I am on board with that. I have no problem with nuclear reactors on the Moon or on Mars...
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the fantasy of the 4th generation nukes. Well, maybe in 50 or 100 years, but certainly not anytime soon. Incidentally, there are solid reason to expect that smaller nukes will be even more excessively expensive than large ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Well Germany has _scrapped_ the THTR-300 after it got damaged beyond repair. The THTR-70 radioactive ruin is still sitting in storage in Germany and experts hope to maybe be able to open it and look inside in 50 years or so. Incidentally, the Chinese ones are using the German patents. THTRs have this tendency to run fine for a while and then fail catastrophically (for the machine, not the environment). As to the others, yes, some prototypes were built back then. Does not mean they can be still built today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a thought: let's build wind turbines in windy places, solar panels in sunny places, and nuclear reactors anywhere they make sense.
That is actually the prevailing plan. Wind and solar where feasible with a strong nuclear base for it to stand on. There really is no other system that can scale with our civilization and keep up with the demands while keeping carbon in check.
Wind and solar may meet our demands currently but at some point in the future you are going to run out of places to build them. As more developing countries, develop, our energy demands are just going to increase. There just simply will not be suitable place
Re: (Score:2)
Where is building more nuclear reactors the prevailing plan?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
China.
India.
Turkey.
South Korea.
United Kingdom.
Russia.
United Arab Emirates.
Japan*.
United States.
Bangladesh.
Source [visualcapitalist.com]
* construction is currently suspended, but not cancelled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it is the prevailing plan. Your own post shows that. Wind and solar where feasible with a nuclear base to back it up. That is exactly what China is doing. They are tapping the wind resources they have while building nuclear plants to back it up. It makes sense they are a head in the wind area because wind is easier to set up than nuclear, but that doesn't mean they are not going to have a nuclear base. Just its easier to build.
Re: (Score:3)
Good job again trying to move the goalposts. Prevail = a verb. Prevailing = adjective.
When used as an adjective, as it was in the fucking question that was asked, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:
existing at a particular time; current.
"the unfavorable prevailing economic conditions"
Checkmate.
Re: (Score:2)
United States?? You mean where the decision to extend the life of that reactor in California in order to keep the grid from completely collapsing was controversial, and they're still going to shut it down with no plans to build any more? Where every time nuclear power comes up there's vociferous objection from a large number of people? That's what you're referring to as "the prevailing plan"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical thinking of a westerner. Europe and North America are the whole world. What about India? Is there enough land in India to build large wind and solar farms to supply the whole population? Short answer, no there is not. An the Indians know this. That is why they are leading the field on nuclear research.
An there are other countries where you would have to destroy entire ecosystems worth of forests to build enough wind and solar to meet the demands. Demands that can be met by small nuclear re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India is 1.2 billion people crammed into the area roughly quarter the size of the United States. There are better uses for the land that a solar or wind farm will take up. You could also take build a solar farm along the coast but what would that do to the ecosystems in those areas.
India is a perfect place for nuclear power. Small modular reactors could provide all the power the country needs with out taking the vast amounts of land that wind and solar farms take up. The Indians know this which is why
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-nuke generation will never die off. They educate their offspring in the same anti nuclear nonsense they learned. The best solution we can hope to come up with is to educate the current generation in state of the art nuclear research while teaching them to ignore their parents like we are.
But you know how people are when they get a stupid idea that something is harmful. The anti nuclear people are just like the anti vaxxers and the 5G kooks. Can't be reasoned with, just ignored while being co
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a thought: let's build wind turbines in windy places, solar panels in sunny places, and nuclear reactors anywhere they make sense.
Diversity of supply is key to energy security
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recent offshore wind auctions in the UK were at 27 GBP/MWh, new nuclear is around 150. That's 5.5x the cost for nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the numbers are exactly what makes it a more practical solution than nuclear. It is much easier to install 20 turbines a year for 5 years than one reactor in 5 years: lower cost, better operating economics, and reduced project risk. You also have the opportunity to use that whole geographical diversity thing to your advantage.
There is a place for nuclear power, but it isn't in providing low cost, fast deployment power.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a place for nuclear power, but it isn't in providing low cost, fast deployment power.
You are actually thinking old school nuclear power plants. Those are not the future. The future of nuclear is in small modular reactors. They are build on a assembly line and shipped in on the back of a truck. Once they are in place and fueled they are never fueled again. They will run for 20 years, give or take, then you pull out spend module and ship it off for reclaiming and recycling. They are basically large nuclear batteries and stacked to provide increase demand as needed.
Baring a major brea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
These reactors do exist and they are on the edge of deployment now. But like so many of you anti nuclear kooks reality goes in one side and out the other.
So I'm going to dumb this down for all you anti nuclear kooks joining us. Wind Turbines, you can't put the god damn things every where. You can't just bang up a fucking wind or solar farm where ever the hell you want too. Some places the ONLY option is a small nuclear power plant. Or do you think that some developing countries just deserve to sit i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Question. Are they going to be able to scale this up to meet the needs of the entire nation now and the future? 1.2 Billion people on wind only? No they are not. They know this that is why they have one of the best nuclear research program in the world. The Indians that is.
Once again you anti nuclear kooks are trying to high jack the thread with your anti nuclear propaganda which really only amounts to "nuclear bad nuclear bad. I'm going to post some real facts here now. You can accept them or p
Re: (Score:3)
Is reading really that hard for you? I have never said they are not feasible. I said in areas where they are not feasible. There are areas where wind and solar are not feasible, so unless you want to drop a fossil fuel plant in there nuclear is the best option.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
SMRs are unproven and have many of the same flaws as old reactor designs,
The NuScale ones, for example, need refuelling every two years. They produce even more waste than traditional reactors.
They need a cooling pool. If the pool drains, they melt down. Hopefully you don't have any earthquakes that could crack it.
The cost isn't that much lower than traditional reactors, because SMRs don't last as long and still need the rest of the plant. Plumbing, monitor equipment, containment building, spend fuel pool, w
Re: (Score:2)
There are some valid criticisms of NuScale, but the fuel waste is no worse than a traditional reactor. Sure, you have more containment vessle mass, but over the operating life that is a minor issue. Everything needs to be refuled. I don't think it is going to create a huge boon to nuclear power at this point though; you are correct in that the cost is still really high, and the lead time is only marginally improved. The cooling pool comment is also nothing different than a traditional plant.
Re: (Score:3)
SMRs are proven, once again your data is out of date. Please, if you wish to continue to participate in these conversations make sure you are up on the science. Please stop spreading FUD on the subject.
Re:rather small and useless (Score:4, Informative)
I note you don't provide any evidence at all that SMRs are proven technology in a commercial environment.
Wikipedia has a list of SMR designs, which lists the current state they are at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You will note that only two are actually operating currently.
1. HTR-PM in China. A 210MWe unit using a pebble bed. One of them has been connected to the grid since December 2021. No data on commercial viability or operating performance, it's too early and likely to be kept a trade secret anyway. The design is dissimilar to NuScale and other Western designs so is of limited use in evaluating, although relatively little is known of it anyway.
2. KLT-40S in Russia, a marine nuclear reactor modified to produce electricity. Output is only 70MWe, and it is not known if it is commercially viable as Rosatom as not released any data. They haven't built any more since it was launched in 2010 either.
So what are these other SMRs that have been installed and proven to work in a commercial environment and proven to be competitive on cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it wouldn't do any good. You are a closed minded individual and it wouldn't matter if produced you tablets penned by God himself on the subject. I've already proven this too you and all you do is continue to parrot the same old bullshit that you have been parroting for the last 5 years.
So grow up, educate yourself, and stop being part of the problem. Then we'll talk.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a point, there are no SMR operating in a commercial environment. But I've also pointed out this is a new technology. It is just now reach a mature state and was just now approved for field testing.
https://news.yahoo.com/tiny-mo... [yahoo.com]
The problem with you anti nuclear people is you don't want to give this technology a chance. You just hand wave it away with "nuclear bad .. nuclear bad."
With this post I'm done here. Ether go out and educate yourself on state of the art or continue to be part o
Re: (Score:3)
Well the nuclear kooks have come along and, as usual, tried to high jack the thread with FUD about nuclear power.
The point of the thread isn't nuclear OR wind/solar. The point of the thread is wind and solar where feasible, with a strong nuclear base to support it where its not.
Re: (Score:3)
I call them kooks because they are. I used to debate them, brought out the facts and figures. Proved all their fud wrong, didn't do any good as it went in one ear and out the other. So, after awhile I simply gave up. I will not debate or attempt to change the mind of a kook.
If you want to talk seriously about the current state of the art of nuclear power I'm all ear. I'll even bring out the links. But I will not debate a kook. It is like teaching a pig to sing. Only waste my time and annoys the p
Re: (Score:2)
Which of those designs can provide low cost, fast deployment solutions? Sure, there are significant improvements, but it is about much more than the reactor design to make a new reactor commercially viable.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of those designs can provide low cost, fast deployment solutions? Sure, there are significant improvements, but it is about much more than the reactor design to make a new reactor commercially viable.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pollutants from fiberglass? What, the fiber, or the glass? Perhaps you meant from the motors, which are pretty much entirely recyclable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a wind-powered record player, but forgot to say if it's 33RPM or 45RPM.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Urectum?