Slashdot Mirror
Floating Wind Turbine Platform
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."
How much will it cost to build though? And would it have any impact on the environment under the water, when placed in lower water levels? Perhaps it's not a major concern? I could just see the great lakes covered by hundreds of these ;)
KeepTrackOfIt.com - Find the lowest gas prices in your area graphically
I'm all for alternatives for energy production but would it be logistically feasible to conduct such a venture? Wind farms on the land take up massive amounts of landspace, I just don't know how you could acceptably occupy a similar amount area on water. That is unless the technology has advanced somewhat and not as many windmills are required to produce the same amount of energy.
I know that the article summary took great pains to point out that few birds are out this far from land, but you just know that one or two will be killed by one of these turbines. It is inevitable.
That said, no matter how much alternative energy sources are promoted by one faction of the environmental movent there will always be the fringe who hates any energy source that benefits humans. It is as if humans are not part of nature and that we are just a fucking infection that is destroying the Mother Earth (Matrix Agentism). It is chilling how much the rhetoric of Earth First! and other enviro-whackos mirrors that of fundamentalist theologies.
I hope this project can get funded. We need energy and there is no reason for us to not develop these resources for human use.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
...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.
I, for one, welcome our new gird overlords.
Supplementing the gird is a commendable achievement.
Where are we keeping the real editors?
C17H21NO4
Imagine a Beowulf cl... oh wait never mind.
According to this study reported by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4072756.stm) windfarms pose a low risk to birds. I believe buildings in general are far more of a threat.
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.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"nearly ready to strike a deal to install"
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.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. - Douglas Adams
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
He must have been talking to VP Cheney and his Haliburton buddies....
But shouldn't we be working to eliminate those pesky migratory birds; especially since H5N1 is milling about. Mulching birds should be listed a feature, a feature that is part of the fight to stop the bird flu. It could be a War-on-Avian flu, to be waged at sea, stopping migration before it starts. All good now.
The electricity->hydrogen->electricity cycle is only about 50% efficient using utility-scale 100MW plants (slightly lower for 1MW or so sized plants, and much lower for lab-sized plants). Right now there is so little wind power installed that the grid can easily handle large amounts of extra wind power. When 20% of electricity is coming from wind, then they'll start to be substantial benefits to power storage (though I see hydroelectric storage as a more practical form of storage than hydrogen, and that's good until renewables cover 100% of electricity demand and we're at the stage of needing liquid fuel for airplanes and vehicles).
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?
- 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 I could find is an MD in Texas, and the only Stanbury Resources 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.Floating wind turbines are fine, but only until you can get your tidal generators up, and those become obsolete after underwater nuclear is built. They are quite fragile, however, so be sure to protect them with Scooters or floating Defenders, to ward off trigger-happy Scouts... ;)
LRN 2 SWM
There's more they can do to increase to cost ratio. First, You're out in the middle of the ocean, plenty of sunlight out there, so cover the thing in Solar Cells. Secondly, you're out in the middle of the ocean, plenty of waves out there, why not pick up the wave energy. Third, you're out in the middle of the ocean, thers's a significant surface to deep ocean temperture differnential out there, pick that up with a sterling engine. And number four, if you produce the hydrogen/oxygen under water rather then on the surface you can allow it too rise to the surface and harvest bubble energy! ;)
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?
:T:R:A:N:S:
This is great until the next Cat 4 Hurricane, then the whole system goes to hell. The problem with floating platforms is that if they are connected directly to the grid, then they are connected via a cable. You can't just drive something that tethered out of the way of a hurricane.
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.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
So I'm reading the article thinking "what keeps the platform from floating away?" and of course I think "Duh, anchors." So then I'm thinking "if we have a giant powerplant tethered securely to teh seafloor, why not put the turbines UNDER the water and harvest energy from tidal movements rather than wind? Surely there's more to be had there.
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
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
The real advantage of this system is that it's governed by the law of the sea. These vessels can fly flags of convenience and simply import Hydrogen. You want to complain that they're killing birds? Too bad They're bothering your politically-connected and oh so expensive Cape Cod view? Thanks for playing "We don't care".
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.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
But of course nobody is protesting wind and solar power,
I can't take anything you write seriously.
You are so full of shit that you can't escape your own narrow-minded rhetoric.
The ones I've cited were just the first three entries.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Nothing says bogus quite like changing units in mid-sentence.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Guys, wake up.
This article is barely worth discussion. These are the same clowns who set off our collective bullshit alarms in a previous Slashdot article. It's a shame they ganked that domain name(opensourceenergy.org), it would have made a great name for a collaborative site for use by actually reputable people.
While not an expert in the field, I know a guy who is, and from discussions with him, have gained some knowledge.
Wind turbines are more a 'feelgood' measure than a power generation system. They are, primarily, made from high grade Aluminium, which requires very high amounts of electric power to produce. How much? Well, you're average generator doesn't become energy positive for about 8-10 years. ( est. lifespan 20-35 ).
I would imagine that a floating turbine would require considerably more construction materials, so the maths becomes even worse, especially after taking into account the power transmission/storage requirements.
Like most forms of alternative energy, it's a good idea, but needs more work to be truely viable.
The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory did a feasibility study on these types of floating turbine farms and found that they could be built using existing technology and provide electricity at approximately $0.05/kWh. The turbines studied did not include the battery storage and hydrogen production described in the article above.
"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."
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.
The problem with making Wind energy into a baseload power source is it's intermittancy. To overcome this without using a fossil fueled backup system (which completely defeats the purpose of having wind power in the first place, you need a storage and backup system). Probably the most energy efficient backup system we can have is a reversable fuel cell system (H2Electricity), with 70% efficiency. A good wind turbine installation will generate electricity around 33% of the time. Hence the installed capacity required becomes: N = 1 + ((1-C).(1/(E.R)))/C Where N = Capacity multiplier, C= Capacity Factor, E=H2 generation energy efficiency, R=Electricity generation from hydrogen efficiency. Putting in our numbers above, we get: N= 1+(((1-0.33).(1/0.7x0.7))/0.33) =1+((1.33)/0.33) =5 This means that you need to install 5MW of wind turbines to get 1MW baseload power. So you can take wind power cost estimates, and assuming that your fuel cells and hydrogen storage systems are free, multiply the cost by 5 to get a realistic cost. The above also assumes that hydrogen storage is lossless, which is generally not the case. If, as may well be the case, hydrogen needs to be stored on a season to season basis (i.e more wind in winter), this may make the system physically impossible. Furthermore, the above uses lab fuel cell efficiencies; reducing to 'real world' 40% efficiencies means that N=13, i.e. no less than 13Mw of wind generators are required for 1MW baseload. In short, wind power shows no sign of ever being able to economically fulfill our energy requirements.
I work in the wind energy industry and the above comments strike me as misinformed.
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 the parent) assert that wind power does not constitute not serious generation. Denmark forms an excellent counter-example, approaching 30% wind energy penetration on windy days. They have the advantage of grid stabilisation from Germany, but even the UK government estimated that 20% penetration would pose no serious problems in grid stability terms.
As for (non-floating) offshore devices, the UK is gaining experience fast. Round 1 projects are in construction or operational, and round 2 are in planning. Several round 2 projects are rated around 1GW, equivalent to a large conventional power station, however, the economics are fairly tricky, even in areas unaffected by Lee's "Land Wind Shadow".
My personal feeling is that if battery technology or hydrogen conversion were economically viable, the vastly lower cost of on-shore construction would more than outweigh the additional wind speeds obtained off-shore, especially if the turbines were put on a hill. Power storage systems tend to be done on a smaller scale (one turbine and a backup generator) for island communities, but this is driven by the high price of energy in these locations.
Lee's design strikes me as perculiar:
1 Wake losses. turbines are usually placed atleast 6 rotor diameters downwind of each other in prevailing directions, to avoid onerous fatigue loads. Lee's machines are 1D apart.
2 Why have the battery storage off-shore? Could there not be a more efficient, and easier to maintain on-shore facility?
Where did you get THAT information from? Wind generators are steel (usually with fibreglass blades). The energy payback is around 6 months which is pretty damned good. Germany is already generating 12% of its power demands from your so called "feel good" measure.
But I'm not convinced the floating platform idea will work - tall, floating structure = asking for trouble.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The more individual turbines the more moving parts you have. The blades aren't what wear out. True larger blades cost a lot but the long term costs come from maintaining the machinery in the turbine. So fewer larger turbines is a more cost effective way of gathering wind power.
As far as stacking, you're already really high up. I know the turbines they are proposing to put in Vineyard Sound are 120m tall or so. I think that's just the tower too. The blades up higher. So the tower would have to be twice that and much stronger since you'd be applying force even further from the base. Maybe they do this with smaller turbines but I'm pretty sure costs get out of hand quickly.
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.