Slashdot Mirror


Belgium Plans Artificial Island To Store Wind Power

bmcage writes "Belgium wants to build an artificial energy storage island within 5 years. The island will store excess energy produced at night from the offshore wind farms already present in the North-Sea. From the article: 'Belgium is planning to build a doughnut-shaped island in the North Sea that will store wind energy by pumping water out of a hollow in the middle, as it looks for ways to lessen its reliance on nuclear power. One of the biggest problems with electricity is that it is difficult to store and the issue is exaggerated in the case of renewable energy from wind or sun because it is intermittent depending on the weather. "We have a lot of energy from the wind mills and sometimes it just gets lost because there isn't enough demand for the electricity," said a spokeswoman for Belgium's North Sea minister Johan Vande Lanotte.'"

242 comments

  1. MMMM, Doughnut by Noctis-Kaban · · Score: 2

    It’s a good idea. I do wonder how the harsh north sea tides will affect it though. And as power storage goes, it's the safest way to store it... also the most tasty.

    1. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it has purple in the middle

    2. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I was expecting some Kafka-esque island for lawyers, academics, and politicians.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Can't it be both?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    4. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?

    5. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Donut - for pigs.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    6. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by tattood · · Score: 1

      For those that don't understand from TFS how it would work and don't want to RTFA:

      "Excess energy would be used to pump water out of the centre of the island, and then the water would be let back in through turbines when demand outpaces supply."

      I'm no engineer, but it seems like you would spend more energy pumping the water out, than you would get back from the turbines, so wouldn't this be not very efficient?
      Are batteries out of the question when it comes to storing this much energy?

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    7. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2

      I'm no engineer, but it seems like you would spend more energy pumping the water out, than you would get back from the turbines, so wouldn't this be not very efficient?

      Sure, pumped storage is typically below 80% efficient and this may even fall below the 70% efficiency of the worst schemes. However that doesn't matter. The thing is that sometimes the value of electricity even becomes negative. This happens e.g. because Nuclear power plants are very inflexible and can't stop producing power. At night, in warmish weather (too warm to heat, too cool for aircon) you easily end up with almost no energy used so you have to dump that power somewhere. In those circumstances getting back even a little of the power at another time when it is worth something is a great deal. The great thing is that power from pump storage is very flexible. You can switch it on or off in seconds. That is well worth paying an efficiency penalty for.

      A challenge of wind power is that the wind varies, and transmission is a quite expensive. You can solve this by building extra turbines which mean that even in reasonably light wind you can provide enough power for normal times. However, that means that in strong winds or at night you end up with plenty of excess capacity which is bringing nothing. If you have a scheme like this you can use that extra capacity for something useful.

      Are batteries out of the question when it comes to storing this much energy?

      They are mostly too expensive, however people definitely trying to develop reasonably priced batteries. There were ideas about using batteries in electric cars where they would already have been paid for.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    8. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Are batteries out of the question when it comes to storing this much energy?

      Yes, for now.

      it seems like you would spend more energy pumping the water out, than you would get back from the turbines, so wouldn't this be not very efficient?

      The point of any pump storage is to have energy when you need it but that does come with a cost. Current methods to cover peak energy use include things like jet engines hooked up to generators so it doesn't have to be paticularly efficient to replace those - the important thing is to be able to deliver at the right time.

    9. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, put them in a big room that is raised to 'store electricity', and as it is lowered, electricity is regenerated.

      It also makes sure they all stay together and is non-trivial to escape from.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:MMMM, Doughnut by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you would otherwise do with the energy.
      Typically, traditional power plants keep on running at the same output level, regardless of energy demand ( they can't quickly lower their output ).
      However, looking at a typical day, the consumption of energy is not always the same : at noon there will be a much higher demand for energy than at night.

      What happens in this case is the following : water is pumped up to a higher level at night ( using electricity that is produced anyway and would otherwise go to waste ). At noon , the water is brought down again, thus producing electricity which can be used to handle the higher demand at a certain moment.

      Added advantage is that electricity is cheaper at night than in the day, so you win back some of the money you lose on efficiency.
      This isn't exactly a new idea though.

  2. Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dr.Flake · · Score: 3, Informative

    First, i'm Dutch, the northern neighbor of the Belgians, and we like to make jokes of each other.

    But why make an island first? One could also transport the energy on shore and do the same trick with an old abandoned mining network for instance. Sounds like the upfront costs are going to be huge.
    Also, the North Sea is the most busy shipping route on the planet. Do we really need an extra island in it?

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Barryke · · Score: 0

      First, i'm Dutch, the northern neighbor of the Flemish, and we like to make jokes of each other. We also make jokes together at Whales.

      Fixed that for you.

      Speaking of whales, can't Belgium build that island there?

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    2. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Barryke · · Score: 0

      It has recently come to my attention that they are called walloons not whales. (not that it sounds any better lol)

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    3. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Tx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While your questions have some merit, I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever. Without any specific knowledge on the subject, I find it pretty likely that the answers to your questions are

      a) No suitable onshore site exists. Abandoned mines have a risk of contamination if there is a leak, and would be too expensive to make safe.
      b) Cost-benefit analysis has been done and favoured the island over other options. Storing large amounts of electricity is a very expensive business.
      c) Island to be built in coastal waters outside any shipping lanes.

      Of course, I could be wrong...

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    4. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could also transport the energy on shore and do the same trick with an old abandoned mining network for instance.

      The problem is how they get the energy back:

      Excess energy would be used to pump water out of the centre of the island, and then the water would be let back in through turbines when demand outpaces supply.

      If you used a mining network the water in the mine will be lower than sea level, so you'd actually have to pump it back out which would defeat the point. Once they've pumped it out of the doughnut though the water level in the middle will be lower than outside in the rest of the sea, so it'll naturally flow back in when they open the turbines.

      I'm not sure why they couldn't do something similar on shore though. I guess they didn't like the idea of building an enormous water tank on the coastline, maybe they thought a sand doughnut would be easier than a reinforced erosion-resistant concrete tub.

    5. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is similar to Plan Lievense (translation), a 30 year old idea. The original plan did call for storage on land, by pumping water into a reservoir. Only problem is that a breach of the reservoir had the potential of creating a massvice flood.

      As for room on the North Sea, there are already plans for wind farms to be built there. Since ships have to steer well clear of these, you could build this reservoir in the middle of it.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Alarash · · Score: 2

      Sometimes "cost analysis" and "government" don't go well together. Not to mention the possibility of lobbies pushing for the more expensive solution.

    7. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget as well the costs to build this are basically pi*d + turbines, and the storage capacity would be pi*r^2; so economies of scale rapidly kick in - it makes great financial sense to build this HUGE!
      And taking a large amount of farmland or living space out of commission when there is all that unused ocean there just seems plain daft in comparison. What "job" the ocean does it still can do with this, not the same as if you tried to build something analogous on land.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    8. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by hackertourist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually Plan Lievense was to convert part of the IJsselmeer (a large lake) to a reservoir, so not on land.

      A later version of the plan mitigated the flood risk by keeping the reservoir at a lower water level instead of a higher level than the surroundings, which meant using the IJsselmeer wasn't feasible as it was too shallow. So they looked at putting it in the North Sea instead. The Belgian plan is exactly this.

    9. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a US DoD acquisitions type ... we do "cost analysis" ... The problem is that we're using cost estimates made by analogy, handcuffed by regulations and instructions that add an order of magnitude to cost and complexity of all projects, working with contractors who are so bad at business that they can only get government contracts.

    10. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      d) The guy who owns the company that would be contracted to do it is the golf-buddy of the guy who makes the decision.

      Unfortunately, that particular link I have witnessed on scales from the education secretary down to local headteachers in everything from primary schools to academies (privatised schools that break the rules that state schools aren't allowed to break, and get private "sponsorship" which allows them to sign exclusive, long-term contracts with manufacturers owned by the guy from the same army regiment as the "superhead" appointed by a parliamentary Lord to run the academy).

      The councillor in charge of waste management in my local London borough "just happens" to own the independent waste management company that they contract out all their services to. It's declared on something called the "Register of Interests" but I can't help feeling that that's a conflict of interest whether you state it or not.

      It's really that common in politics and the only question is whether you can prove it or not. I've worked in places where it was literally so bad, we used to Google the directors of the company of any van that pulled into the car park. Glaziers, carpet-fitters, electricians, IT cabling guys, you name it, we managed to find direct links back to those people authorised the contracts (and, in some cases, they directly profited from the companies that were employed to do those contracts - but it was all "okay" because they declared their interests in some obscure paperwork that was almost impossible to find).

    12. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Why not pump the water out of the mines with the excess electricity, and use the water flowing back in to run the turbines?

    13. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The economics of this are quite complex. So long as the stored energy is insignificant relative to the market, it's quite attractive. Buying energy when there's an excess also means buying when it's cheap. Selling in a shortage means selling when the price is high. In other words, a classic market arbitrage situation.

      But as storage becomes larger, of course it starts to feed back into market prices and smooths out the highs and lows of the market. Eventually it should settle to a point where the cost of storage equates to the average difference between buy and sell price, but what that cost might be I don't think anyone knows yet.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    14. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Belgian here, and acknowledging the jokes part ;-)

      The nearest mine I can think of is more than 100 km from the coast (let alone the wind farm). That doesn't seem like a good plan at first glance. And the island is near the wind farm. I suppose that is nowhere near the shipping routes, or we would already have a problem with ships trying to manoeuvre between the turbines.

    15. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Basje · · Score: 1

      The idea isn't new: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Lievense (Dutch only, I'm afraid)

      The Belges lack the geology to implement this without an artificial island.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    16. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      First, i'm Dutch, the northern neighbor of the Belgians, and we like to make jokes of each other.

      But why make an island first?

      Or they could used the Netherlands, as far as I remember most of it is below sea-level anyway :)

    17. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely right. Of course this doesn't come falling out of the sky, and likely a large number of bright people have spend quite some time crunching numbers on this.

      however, in The Netherlands we also had a megalomaniac idea of building a mountain a mile high that also received quite some attention. (Link).
      Or how about an entire airport? (Link)
      also with all the numbers and estimates in order.
      So no shortage of plans.

      Remains, why at sea, in a vulnerable nature, with extreme costs and likely in the way of others?
      Building at sea is probably 3 times more expensive. twice the maintenance costs. (sucking my thumb right now)

      You only avoid the "not in my backyard" people.

      Leaking drinking water is not an issue
      On land it already been done in Belgium, can't find the link right now, but they build a lake on a hill. Visited the site once, was apparently quite efficient.
      The entire Belgium North Sea (quite small actually) is shipping lane (Link)

    18. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      You'd need to make sure the mine was completely water tight or water would be draining in from the surrounding rock and not draining in via the turbine and so reduce the efficency of the system.

      You would also still need a reservior of water nearby to to drain into the mine, it's basically the same problem of all hydro-storage setups, whether you store the water up high and let it drain out in mountainous areas or store the water at ground and let it drain into a mine. You need to find the right geology to do it.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    19. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a US DoD acquisitions type ... we do "cost analysis" ... The problem is that we're using cost estimates made by analogy, handcuffed by regulations and instructions that add an order of magnitude to cost and complexity of all projects, working with contractors who are so bad at business that they can only get government contracts.

      Does anyone ever do an analysis of the costs of doing a cost analysis?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    20. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by arnodf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. there are no mines near the coast. Who would mine sand since that's all there is?
      2. transportation from the sea to the coast would be incredibly expensive because you need to build pipelines, several pumps (as compared to only a few to pump it from the sea into the doughnut). We have (this will sound chauvinistic but I'm allowing my self to do so in this case) the best dredging companies in the world (Jan de Nul and Deme).
      3. It's 3km off the coast... that's nothing. The shipping lanes are way out into the see. The only thing that may cause perhaps some problems is the harbour of Zeebrugge. The distance between Calais and Dover is what? 60km?

    21. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well,

      to be honest, the Dutch were thinking about this already:
      http://www.dnvkema.com/services/etd/es/large-scale-storage.aspx

      But apparently, what is needed is a layer of clay beneath the seabed. The Dutch coast does not have this layer, the Flemish coast does (for those interested: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomse_Klei - in Dutch)

      To answer your question about why the island? Well there is already an offshore wind park. This would fit in nicely there.

    22. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      While your questions have some merit, I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever. Without any specific knowledge on the subject...

      Allow me to stop you there and say, you must be new here. It's a proven fact that /. is populated by the best of the best. Everyone who's anyone here are combination lawyers, sociologists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists, nuclear scientists, astronauts, psychologists, secret agents, trashmen, and consultants.

      Oh, and some of us even have girlfriends.

    23. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by ai4px · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone ever do an analysis of the costs of doing a cost analysis?

      Amen brother! They've been doing an environmental impact study for years to consider deepening the Charleston SC harbor channel by something like 2 meters. They've spent MILLIONS on the study and more time than it would have taken to have simply deepened the channel.

    24. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    25. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I assumed it was meant to be a reference to "Wales" and the Welsh, though I couldn't figure out why your countrie(s) would be so obsessed with them.

      BTW, are you sure that your "correction" wasn't just wish-fulfilment based on your personal identification with the Flemish community? (Also, since we're talking about names that don't sound good, "Flemish" sounds a bit like "Phlegm-ish" ;-) )

    26. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloonia

    27. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      But why make an island first? One could also transport the energy on shor.

      space. There is no room on the shore (or anywhere else in belgium).

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    28. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      d) The guy who owns the company that would be contracted to do it is the golf-buddy of the guy who makes the decision.

      It's interesting to note that when Steve Stevaert was still in office, solar power was really promoted and heavy subsidized. (He had his hands deep in some solar-panel companies). Now that Johan Vande Lanotte took over from Stevaert, (same political party: spa), solar-power is getting beat up heavy with serious cuts in funding etc. however his hands being very deep in wind-power pockets, much is happening to facilitate and promote wind power.

      That party is filled with corrupt and crooked officials, their sister party in Wallonië has similar problems with several scandals. e.g. using government visa cards for private uses etc...
      No, I don't know why people still vote for them.

    29. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, i'm Dutch, the northern neighbor of Antwerp, and we like to make jokes of each other. We also make jokes together at Whales.

      FTFY. Why stop at splitting flanders from wallonia?

    30. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by mrvan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "We" made a similar island for storing contaminated sludge in a part of the IJsselmeer. This reservoir island is 1km across (so slightly smaller but same order of magnitude) and 45m deep.

      Some links: google maps, Dutch wiki, google translated Dutch wiki.

      According to this page, this island cost around 250 million to build. At 1 km across and 45m deep, it can hold around 35E6 sq meters of water=3.5E10 kgs of water. No idea whether it works that way, but the potential energy might be m*g*h=3.5E10 * 9.81 * 22 (avg.) ~ 7E12 joules, or the output of a 3500MW power plant for 7E12/3.5E9 2000 seconds or about half an hour, assuming 100% efficiency and no fuckups in my orders of magnitude.

      I'm assuming it is easier to build this in the ocean than to dig it in a shallow lake (the lake around the reservoir is about 2.5m deep), because otherwise why not just dig it in the shallow lake? Since the north sea is about 50m deep offshore from the low countries, a reservoir of 3km accross wil hold 9 times as much energy, or around 5 hours of output from one plant. Whether that is enough or not I have no idea. I would suppose that the cost could be around 9*250 million = 2.5 billion euro, which is cheaper than building a new plant but nothing to sneeze at.

    31. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That party is filled with corrupt and crooked officials, their sister party in Wallonië has similar problems with several scandals. e.g. using government visa cards for private uses etc...
      No, I don't know why people still vote for them.

      because ALL the other parties have the same problem ?

    32. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      there are already plans for wind farms to be built there

      plans ?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belwind

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    33. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 2
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    34. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually Plan Lievense was to convert part of the IJsselmeer (a large lake) to a reservoir, so not on land.

      Lakes are on land. HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    36. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there's no study that congess won't fund. We have to fill out time tracking shit for filling out time tracking shit every time there's an "efficiency study"

    37. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Over the years I've assured people who complain about "Big Oil" that even in a fully renewable powered world we'd still complain about "Big Wind" etc; nice to have this rather obvious point confirmed again, eg Solyndra.

    38. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by ledow · · Score: 2

      Then don't vote.

      Most sensible countries have specific laws about what happens when not enough people vote - i.e. the vote is invalid and special action have to be taken.

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for a known evil.

    39. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there's lies a plenty about it regardless, eg, Solyndra.

      Some people seem to think they didn't even build the factory, that it couldn't make a product, and that they didn't sell anything.

    40. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose you think the sea just floats above an empty void?

    41. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lakes are also man-made (there are no man-made oceans).

      Guess what the Ijsselmeer is. One guess: it's not natural.

    42. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by bmcage · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Belgium, you MUST vote, or you get a fine. It is called 'election DUTY' instead of the common 'election right'.

    43. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      If you check the map, you'll see that the IJsselmeer is actually a sea bay that's been closed of with a dam (the Afsluitdijk). It used to be called the Zuiderzee (South Sea).

    44. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by lysdexia · · Score: 2

      Oh, and some of us even have girlfriends.

      You had me right until the end. Well played!

    45. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      If you check the map, you'll see that the IJsselmeer is actually a sea bay that's been closed of with a dam (the Afsluitdijk). It used to be called the Zuiderzee (South Sea).

      My comment was correct and insightful either way, without me even checking. Either it's not a lake, or it's not on land. QED. If it's been closed off from the sea with a dam then your outflow problems are solved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by usuallylost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does anyone ever do an analysis of the costs of doing a cost analysis?

      This is modded funny but we, in the US, should really be asking this question. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is so unwieldy and requires so much man power and bureaucracy that I would not be at all surprised to find that it sometimes doubles the cost of things the US government buys.

    47. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know the Belgians.

    48. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by rve · · Score: 2

      First, i'm Dutch, the northern neighbor of the Belgians, and we like to make jokes of each other.

      This is a misunderstanding. The Dutch may like to joke about Belgians, but don't really mean it. Belgians are deadly serious when they call the Dutch nasty, greedy, unreliable, uncultured, rude and stupid. There is no joking involved.

    49. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not pump the water out of the mines with the excess electricity, and use the water flowing back in to run the turbines?

      Because people would go apeshit about possible earthquakes and potential groundwater contamination. Lookup fracking for some examples of what type of resistance (to both real and imagined issues) you will get.

    50. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      To me, the OP's use of "on land" seemed to imply that Plan Lievense was to involve digging a lake out of dry land. To which I provided a rebuttal. Quibbling over the definition of "lake" is entertaining, but tangential.

    51. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      It has recently come to my attention that they are called walloons not whales. (not that it sounds any better lol)

      Yeah, indeed. They are called walloons, and this rhimes with balloons, which is just another way to store wind power...

    52. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about the marine life? I live near the fifth largest pumped storage plant(it was the largest when built). It is on the shores of Lake Michigan where the marine life is much smaller and they maintain a net around the inlet so they do not pump a lot of fish into the man made lake. I guess the turbine blades are not too healthy to them on their small trip. I can just see them discovering a whale or a dolphin cut to pieces inside this island. I suppose they could construct a huge barrier to the inlet but it would have to be much stronger than the net they put around the Michigan pumped storage plant.

    53. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An environmental impact study isn't a cost analysis so that's irrelevant. They aren't trying to determine the most cost effective method of doing something (in which case spending more on the determining that then a particular method would cost is really stupid), they are trying to determine if they'll screw anything up by doing the work.

      You can think it's a silly to do and that there's no need to care what the environmental impact is, or that any impact will worth the benefits, or whatever. But the time and cost compared to the time and cost to do the work isn't an argument for that.

    54. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      Big Wind

      I am getting my (100% renewable) electricty from a co-op. You needn't complain about it: you can escape it.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    55. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Amouth · · Score: 2

      so while i don't have experiences in storing wind energy at sea or building islands. something that stands out to me as the same solution but i would think would be much cheaper and quicker. Do it the same way the oil platforms do it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_(platform)

      the nice large vertical cylinder is used to store the oil until a tanker comes and then it pumps into the tanker, then it moves to a new well and refills the tank.

      Using the same basic design, you would not need nearly the same build requirements as an oil platform because a potential leak just reduces the effectiveness and isn't an environmental issue. Also using this design they could store them closer to the wind farms, move the potential energy as needed, and you could make them unmanned units which would further lower the cost to build.

      for shallow waters the oil companies use the same design but rather build a concrete cylinder that is connected to bedrock, this is a permanent storage platform that normally gets it's oil from multiple small wells via pipelines and gives tankers a central point to load up. they could possibly use that design in place of a sand built island.

      Also note, that you can just go out and buy a platform, new or used, (lot of old used Russian ones on the market). which could accelerate the time to market, and reduce their engineering overhead.

      again, this seems a simpler solution then trying to build a sand island.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    56. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Lots of peope would mine sand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mining

    57. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever.

      Maybe that's because the idea is premised on the ridiculous assertion that in a world threatened by climate change, we should be eliminating nuclear power rather than expanding it safely.

    58. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      If you check the map, you'll see that the IJsselmeer is actually a sea bay that's been closed of with a dam (the Afsluitdijk). It used to be called the Zuiderzee (South Sea).

      This is sort of interesting. What if, instead of pumping the water into it, you let the tides in. Then you close off the damn when the tides are leaving and generate power. It's no longer a power storage, but power generation. Would this have the potential to create more power than the other tide generation ideas like the floats and such?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    59. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course, I could be wrong..."

      Of course, that is the most likely of your statements

    60. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      This comment should not have been modded-down to zero. It isn't like it was wildly off-topic or trolling or anything like that. I thought it was a little bit funny.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    61. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedants are assholes. HTH, FOADIAF.

    62. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      That idea seems so simple and so great that there's no way someone else hasn't thought of it so it has to be wrong. Or you should be patenting it or something.

      But my guess is that there isn't enough of an elevation change for traditional hydroelectric power generation. Still, that's a lot of potential energy that you'd be capturing, so maybe there are ways to harness it.

    63. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It will use a piece of very advanced high-tech equipment known among Engineers as a "grating".

      Truly we live in exciting times.

    64. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      A structure large enough to store a sufficient amount of water is very expensive.
      Dinorwig in the UK uses 60 m^3 of water per second dropping from 500 m altitude to produce 1800 MW. This would empty an oil platform tank in an hour. Less in the North Sea, because it's only 50 m deep on average so you don't get as much potential energy stored in the water.
      Dinorwig's reservoir is 6.7 million m^3.

    65. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Belgium, you MUST vote, or you get a fine. It is called 'election DUTY' instead of the common 'election right'.

      Can you vote for none-of-the-above, or write in candidates?

    66. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by rve · · Score: 1

      secret agents, trashmen

      Yup, that's me. Secret trash agent. Three times winner of the mister dumpster competition.

    67. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by rve · · Score: 1

      for shallow waters the oil companies use the same design but rather build a concrete cylinder that is connected to bedrock, (...)this seems a simpler solution then trying to build a sand island.

      There is a small flaw in your plan, as far as it applies to that part of the world. The bedrock is hundreds of meters down below the sediment. Building a sand island just means using the materials at hand, rather than having to ship them in from scandinavia. Dredging sand is a relatively easy and cheap method for building structures off the coast, and there is ample experience with this.

    68. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Socialist. The people should not be allowed to own the means of production, next they'll trade banks for credit unions.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    69. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by jafac · · Score: 1

      exactly.

      I say: use the electricity to spin-up a cyclotron generating antiprotons during the day.

      At night, annihilate those antiprotons, and suck-off the waste heat.
      Or use them to create terrifying antimatter weapons to enslave all humanity.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    70. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      assuming 100% efficiency and no fuckups in my orders of magnitude.

      Pump efficiency is typically around 70%-80% for large industrial pumps. Theoretically they can hit about 90%, but that's only for a single pressure and flowrate. Deviate and efficiency drops. A pump driven by a wind turbine is highly unlikely to stay at that sweet spot for any significant amount of time.

      Hydroelectric turbine efficiency is the same, except the situation is more controlled (keep the reservoir close to full) so you can get closer to 90%.

      So pumped storage has about a 0.75*0.9 = 0.67 overall efficiency. The cost for being able to time-shift your energy production is the loss of about 1/3rd of the energy produced.

    71. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Belgium, you MUST vote, or you get a fine. It is called 'election DUTY' instead of the common 'election right'.

      This is true, but it is not enforced: as an anarchist, I did not vote during the latest 25 years. I never got in troubles about that. During the 2012 elections, the minister of internal affarirs explicitely stated that the police and justice systems have better things to do than going after non-voters. They however DO go after people who are appointed to organize the elections or to count the votes if they don't show up.

      The last time somebody was fined for not voting in Belgium was in the late 1970s.

    72. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Big Wind

      How dare you talk about our beloved political leaders like that?!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    73. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but they don't build kilometre deep tunnels to do it.

    74. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your questions have some merit, I find it strange that with announcements like this, people always seem to assume that no thought or planning has gone into it whatsoever. Without any specific knowledge on the subject, I find it pretty likely that the answers to your questions are

      a) No suitable onshore site exists. Abandoned mines have a risk of contamination if there is a leak, and would be too expensive to make safe.
      b) Cost-benefit analysis has been done and favoured the island over other options. Storing large amounts of electricity is a very expensive business.
      c) Island to be built in coastal waters outside any shipping lanes.

      Of course, I could be wrong...

      d) Island less likely to be run over by German tanks.

      (Well that, plus less energy transmission losses since the generating windmills are already in/near the water.)

    75. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by swalve · · Score: 1

      First, you have to find a mine that is below sea level.

    76. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to vote on a person or group if you don't want to. You have to show up, but you can check a box that says you don't want to vote for any of the people on the list.

    77. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Fierlo · · Score: 1
      I'm sure they will look at the water velocities in the suction area.

      You can design the system such that the velocity at distance X (maybe they'll put a net at that distance) is less than Y m/s. Where Y is the velocity above which fish (large/small) will be unlikely to escape.

    78. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      While the US government is effectively in the habit of burying money in bottles for well connected friends in private enterprise to "find" you don't see every government wasting money that way.

    79. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      That seems pretty stupid. I take voting very seriously, and thus on matters on which I don't have a strong opinion either way, or am not (or at least *think* I am not) educated about, I purposely skip voting on that issue/person.

      Heck, I almost never vote for anybody below state level, and usually skip most of the state level people. (Yes, I realize that's opposite from how many people think, e.g. think local, but I know the opinions of the national politicians.)

    80. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Most sensible countries have specific laws about what happens when not enough people vote

      That's right - the Supreme Court penalised you by inflicting Crown (clown?) Prince Bush on you because not enough people get off their arse in Florida to vote. Pretty rough justice in my opinion. For a place that waves the flag around so much it's amazing how few actually do their duty as citizens and vote. Even when Reagan's won by a landslide he was only elected by one in four of the citizens eligible to vote - the other three in four didn't care enough to get off their arses.
      Patriotisim isn't sitting in your basement, cleaning your gun, calling it "precious" and mumbling about the second amendment being an excuse for revolution. It's about being aware of what the fuck is going on in politics around you, where in hell your country is going and getting off your arse every few years to pick a bunch of people that are not going to drag it down to hell.

    81. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In such systems all you have to do is turn up. Just writing "you are all an evil pack of bastards" on the ballot paper (or leaving it blank) and turning it in is acceptable. If there are a large number of such informal votes it gets the attention of the candidates.

    82. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Storing compressed air underwater on the other hand need not so expensive, I think it's got to the pilot plant stage somewhere by now. Big balloons do the job. The expense only comes with making sure they can withstand the sea conditions, so expensive in the North Sea and cheaper in a lagoon. Potential energy then relies on air pressure at depth (shitloads at 50m - around 6 atmospheres I believe) instead of just considering water and altitude on dry land. You can do the same thing on dry land but that means more expensive pressure vessels of fixed volume (and variable pressure) versus very cheap pressure vessels (balloons) of fixed pressure (and variable volume).

    83. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      From Monty Python.

      Top 3 derogatory terms for Belgians.

      The sprouts.
      The Phlegms
      Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards.(winner)

      In light of the joke. I'm bothered not knowing a genuine racial slur for Belgians. Any help?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    84. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A pump driven by a wind turbine is highly unlikely to stay at that sweet spot for any significant amount of time.

      That's a gearing and control systems problem, and as such any design would be to get it to hit the "sweet spot" for the majority of time. Even pushbikes are not direct drive any more :)

    85. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      Please forgive the digression but I heard about this just today..... and the NRA effectively stymied Congress from funding a CDC study on gun violence. So, no, there are some studies Congress won't fund.

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    86. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Krigl · · Score: 1

      Dunno where you live, but pretty much everyone else has to pay for it through taxes or feed-in-tariffs whether they like it or not, which is the main issue - judging from myself, lots of critics would be content with "renewables" craze if its fans paid for it. After all, there must be enough of you to achieve this considering politicians shoving this into our throats get voted again and again. Unless, of course, it keeps on some other way, like lobbying from "Big Wind" (and traditional energy companies are always happy to jump the bandwagon once there are subsidies guaranteed by law)?

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    87. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, insensitive clod, New Orleans...

      We share some history here.

    88. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      6 atmospheres is very low for a CAES.

    89. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    90. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you could also just look it up on Wikipedia:

      PSH reported energy efficiency varies in practice between 70% and 80%, with some claiming up to 87%.

    91. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      The other possibility is that the numbers favor putting the storage right next to the turbines, so you have a constant amount of power being fed back to land instead if tons of it in spurts, and the storage taking up farmland somewhere. Although I'd do a quick guesstimate at putting it near areas of high use.

    92. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The Japanese would then make a tourist attraction of it. cf. Taiji.

    93. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about it being high pressure (although "shitloads" could have been assumed to be so, I'm sorry if you took it that way), especially since it's being compressed with windmills. The plan is apparently to have a lot of volume (not expensive with balloons) instead of a pressure in thousands of atmospheres (which gets expensive to contain).

    94. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Less in the North Sea, because it's only 50 m deep on average so you don't get as much potential energy stored in the water.

      what matters isn't the water depth, but the difference between the height (above an arbitrary point, e.g. the quayside at Newlyn) of the sea's level at the time you're storing/ generating energy and the level of water in your reservoir. What is called the "head" in a conventional hydroelectric scheme.

      The steel used in oil storage tanks has a finite (and relatively short) lifetime in the sea because it rusts. You can manage this to a point, but it will eventually corrode beyond the point of economic repair. That is why the North Sea oil installations that are being decommissioned are the ones with steel legs and sub-structures, while the concrete-legged ones are generally remaining in use (I can't think of an example that's been taken out of service, in the UK).

      That'll be the same problem with large-scale storage of energy as compressed air. Pressure vessels are under considerable stress, and need a lot of structural integrity maintenance. Which reminds me that my SCUBA diving bottles need re-certification in the middle of the coming year.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    95. Re:Belgians drilling a hole in the ocean?? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      and traditional energy companies are always happy to jump the bandwagon once there are subsidies guaranteed by law)?

      you seem to imply only renewables gain subsidies. some news from the REAL world.
      http://solarpowerrocks.com/infographics/u-s-government-energy-subsidies-by-type-of-electricity-produced/
      this doesn't even include externalised costs (like health and environmental damage)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  3. Sounds like a good plan by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't have wind power on any serious scale without storage. Storage built off-shore - near the wind-farm - also lessens the load on the link to the mainland.

    Only question is: Will the polulation accept the high price, or will they prefer to import cheaper nuclear energy from France?

    1. Re:Sounds like a good plan by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Only question is: Will the polulation accept the high price, or will they prefer to import cheaper nuclear energy from France?"

      Cheaper? They give away this power for free if there's a surplus as Germany did during the holidays. It even paid some companies to take the energy. Because of how the subventions work, the power company has to pay the turbine owners for the power and are forced to accept and pay for it.

    2. Re:Sounds like a good plan by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Better import from Germany! They export energy at the lowest price. Even after shutting down their nuclear plants, they still have too much energy. That's because they have lots of solar power and wind turbines. On land. Maybe offshore has higher efficiency once it's built, but construction costs are so incredibly high eventual electricity price is almost double of wind turbines on land, says Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source So Germany exports power for next to nothing. But wait, Germany is the only country Belgium doesn't import power from! How fucking stupid is that? Actually very smart, considering a corrupt government. Belgium lacks behind other European countries dramatically when it comes to renewable power. Government tells people renewable energy is expensive. Meanwhile they keep not importing German power and building expensive offshore wind turbines! As if they want renewable energy to be expensive.

    3. Re:Sounds like a good plan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The price will be lower. Up front cost of wind compares reasonably with nuclear, not sure about this storage system because it is so new. The on-going costs are tiny though, and the lifetime of the wind farm is essentially unlimited as it can be maintained indefinitely. Once you take account of subsidies and lifetime cost wind is already comparable or cheaper than nuclear in most places.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Sounds like a good plan by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Better import from Germany! ... That's because they have lots of solar power and wind turbines.

      So you're saying, instead of building an energy storage system, the Belgians should just buy solar and wind power from Germany when there's no sun or wind in Belgium?

      (FYI: Night falls nearly on the same time in Germany as in Belgium.)

    5. Re:Sounds like a good plan by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's no big deal to park a windmill (or set it to be freewheeling) when you don't need the power so they work with peaks. Nuclear and other thermal power units are a different story and have very large unit sizes as well. If you need 2MW more power later in the day and the choice comes down between firing up another 750MW unit to use in another six hours or kicking in a windmill or two in under a minute (or letting some pump storage run for something absolutely reliable) the choice is very clear. Big baseload units and little units of any kind are there for completely different tasks.

    6. Re:Sounds like a good plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have nuclear power on any serious scale without storage. Why? Because you can't regulate generation up and down to match fluctuating demands. That means that if you were to go 100% nuclear, you'd have to have a huge really expensive plant only operate for 1 hour a day (peak). Today new nuclear plants are only barely competitive if they operate at full speed.

      Also, if you combine solar and wind power on a large grid, you need surprisingly little storage:

      - We modeled wind, solar, and storage to meet demand for 1/5 of the USA electric grid.
      - 28 billion combinations of wind, solar and storage were run, seeking least-cost.
      - Least-cost combinations have excess generation (3 x load), thus require less storage.
      - 99.9% of hours of load can be met by renewables with only 9-72 h of storage.
      - At 2030 technology costs, 90% of load hours are met at electric costs below today's.

    7. Re:Sounds like a good plan by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Nine hours of storage is "surprisingly little"? The island from TFA will store a few minutes of Belgium's energy consumption (assuming a few km^2 lake area, and a depth of fifty meters or so.)

      Also, if you actually read the article you quote, you'll see that the fluctuations in wind power output are much greater than the fluctuations in power demand. That means the cost of storage more than doubles when using wind power instead of nuclear.

      I wish "environmentalists" would stop downplaying the costs of renewable energy. There is already a political will to switch to renewables in almost every country in Europe. What's stopping the process is the people who feel they have been promised cheper energy after the switch. They make it politically impossible to take any measures that increase the cost of energy.

    8. Re:Sounds like a good plan by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      In Germany, there's tons of excess energy even when the sun isn't shining and when there is no wind. What I'm saying is, it isn't always the best option to produce your own energy when one of your neighbor countries is exporting it dirt cheap. Nothing wrong with importing. I'm also saying that the money should be better spent into production rather than storage. Maybe storage was more efficient if there would a lack of "renewables", but this isn't the case, so cost is higher. 800 million euros for ONLY 300 megawatt is ridiculous. In those few cases when there is NO wind AND NO light from the sun, you could have some natural gas plants which only run when there's a lack of energy. Natural gas plants can serve this purpose very well because they can be started up within a few minutes. There already are a few natural gas plants in Belgium which could serve this purpose.

    9. Re:Sounds like a good plan by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      Maybe one day energy storage will be cheap enough to be used on a large scale (and I think it would be the way to go), but this day, I think it really isn't a good idea. I'm still happy they're doing it in an environment-friendly way: using mechanical power (pumping sea water) rather than chemical (I hate batteries!). Also, not very relevant, but in Germany, on average, there also happens to be a little more sunshine than in cloudy grey Belgium.

  4. conceptual drawing and local print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Translated short article with conceptual drawing

  5. Has anyone done an assessment... by Viol8 · · Score: 0

    ... of what extracting a lot of energy from the wind will do to local weather patterns? A the moment its inconsequential but if wind power really becomes a big time method of power generation for a lot of countries then this might become an issue especially during hot summer months when a breeze is needed to keep temperatures down by mixing the air layers.

    1. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not a lot. Certainly no more than building cities and skyscrapers over hundreds of years.

      The energy in the wind is ENORMOUS. Stupendous. On a scale we can't even begin to imagine. Huge masses of air going higher than mountains and pushing things over at huge velocities without even trying.

      But our harnessing of it is pathetic. It's like putting a child's windmill into a wind test tunnel, but actually much, much worse. Sure, we get useful energy "for free" but we don't take 1% of 1% of 1% out of the power of the wind (if you want to see why, just work out how much volume a wind turbine takes up out of, say, the entire atmosphere above your country. It's literally lost in the measurement error. Multiply by even a million and it's still nothing, and beaten by the change in wind pattern generated by, say, a small avalanche on a high mountain).

      The biggest problem is: what sort of impact does having to add all that infrastructure have on the "greenness" of the project? What energy are you using to produce it, and cope with its losses, and what water will you use and how will you filter it (if at all) to get efficient transfer and how will you maintain it (if it's offshore - that's yet-another thing that has to be maintained at great expense and someone has to use a diesel-powered boat to get to it and check on it every so often, etc.). It's all small stuff but it all eats away at the efficiency of the system and we're already at the point where the efficiency of the system has now been admitted to be INADEQUATE after decades of investment and now needs this new "energy store" to make it more efficient.

    2. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by myspys · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by hackertourist · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Also: Goddamn trees, right, stealing all that wind energy and trying to cook us. The dwarves were right!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the efficiency of wind power is much more than adequate. Check this out: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

    6. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Floyd-ATC · · Score: 1

      I've been told that the power required to make enough aluminium for a windmill exceeds what that windmill can generate in its service life. Even if those things didn't kill wildlife and break down all the time they'd still be a pretty stupid idea. And now we want to use water pumps and turbines to use that overpriced electricity to try and empty a pool out in the north sea. Every time it rains you'd basically lose energy and most people who've worked in the north sea will tell you rain isn't really rare out there. Why not scrap the windmills altogether and /collect/ rainwater in that pool instead, then use conventional hydro power to generate electricity? Oh I know, because it doesn't generate nearly the same amount of meaningless jobs.

      --
      Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
    7. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      When you find some 100 metre high trees growing out of the sea get back to us.

    8. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      I've been told that the power required to make enough aluminium for a windmill exceeds what that windmill can generate in its service life..

      Does that make even a little bit of sense from an economic point of view? If the power is X kWh to create the windmill, then the cost of creating the windmill would be X kWh * Y $/kWh (plus lots of other costs for transportation, installation, maintenance). What you are saying is that the most money that the windmill could ever produce would be some number less than that cost (since it would produce Z kWh * Y $/kWh, where Z X). Even with a large subsidy to offset the non-creation costs, it would be a money losing proposition and nobody would do it.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    9. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Teckla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been told that the power required to make enough aluminium for a windmill exceeds what that windmill can generate in its service life.

      Windmills are, and have been for quite a while, profitable over their lifetime, even if you discount any subsidies.

      Since the energy cost of all the materials in a windmill are built into the overall cost of a windmill, it becomes obvious you've been misinformed.

      Also, the meme that windmills kill wildlife is just hype. You've been misinformed there, too.

      It sounds to me like you need to listen to more reputable sources. Yours are misleading you, or just plain lying to you, for whatever reason.

    10. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been told a lot of nonsense too, mostly by idiots.

    11. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      While that may be true about the amount of energy in the wind, our earth sciences aren't advanced enough to go further with it anyway. If we take 10% of the energy out of the wind over a large area not knowing how it effects global weather patterns, we're playing russian roulette.

    12. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by wcoenen · · Score: 1

      we don't take 1% of 1% of 1% out of the power of the wind

      Actually, we do.

      Wind is, directly and indirectly, powered by the sun heating our atmosphere. The total power received by the earth from the sun is 1.7×10^17 watts. 29% of this is immediately reflected back to space by the surface and clouds, so this leaves 1.2x10^17 watts to actually interact with our atmosphere somehow. Let's take that as an upper limit for wind power.

      In 2008 the average global electricity power generated was 2.3x10^12 watts. 2.5% of that is generated from wind power, call it 5x10^10 watts. Considering losses in generation, I'll assume we are actually taking twice that from the wind so about 10^11 watts.

      Which is about 1 millionth of that upper limit for available wind power, or "1% of 1% of 1%" as you would put it.

      Now factor in that wind power generation is growing exponentially, doubling every 3 years, and then it starts to become more plausible that there will be local climate effects within a few decades.

    13. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been told wrong on many levels, not least of which is that the main metal in windmills is steel, not aluminum.

    14. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been told that the power required to make enough aluminium for a windmill exceeds what that windmill can generate in its service life.

      Windmills are, and have been for quite a while, profitable over their lifetime, even if you discount any subsidies.

      Since the energy cost of all the materials in a windmill are built into the overall cost of a windmill, it becomes obvious you've been misinformed.

      Also, the meme that windmills kill wildlife is just hype. You've been misinformed there, too.

      It sounds to me like you need to listen to more reputable sources. Yours are misleading you, or just plain lying to you, for whatever reason.

      The grandparent may be wrong about the initial costs of wind turbines. However, maintenance costs on wind turbines are quite high. With a large steam plant, you shut down the whole place every year or so, do a bunch of repairs in 4 weeks, and start it back up again. Oiling, greasing, and visual checks on the actual equipment is easy since everything is, at most, on the 3rd floor with an elevator and stairs. There is redundancy and failovers. Parts generally last for 4-8 years before needing replacement, and parts can be purchased from a myriad of vendors who reverse engineer each other. You have a 24/7 crew since the plant is big enough to justify it
       
      With wind, the turbines can fail for a myriad of reasons. Redundancy in an individual turbine doesn't make sense financially. Visually checking the machine is a pain in the butt. A crew has to constantly be chasing turbine failures around the wind farm, fixing problems at 300ft above the ground with no elevator and no stairs. Since each machine is small, it can be offline for some time before a crew gets around to fixing it. Parts are often sole-sourced, so cost is high.

    15. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by nebosuke · · Score: 1

      Not saying that I agree with your parent poster (actually, I'd guess the assertion to be utter BS), but your reasoning does consider all of the necessary factors to determine that windmills could not make money under those conditions (producing less energy than required to construct).

      Cost of energy changes radically based on market environment--a large scale Hydro facility can generate electricity for 10% of the cost of a smaller diesel-fueled power plant. Even in the same physical location, if the cheap coal-fired plant operating today has to shut down because of environmental impact 3 years from now, it may make sense to take advantage of today's cheap energy to manufacture windmills to profit off of tomorrow's soaring energy prices.

      Basically, if you manufacture the wind mill in a cheap energy environment and then operate it in an expensive energy environment you can still make a profit even if it generates less energy than it took to build. From an economic perspective it is basically a device by which you can perform energy arbitrage across energy market A and temporally (and possibly physically) displaced market B. Market distortions such as subsidies and cheap capital (minimizing the negative time-value of money impact caused by the temporal displacement of returns) make it easier to make a profit.

    16. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      Also, the meme that windmills kill wildlife is just hype. .

      Not entirely. It does seem that bats have a problem with windmills in some locations.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    17. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by dkf · · Score: 1

      Not entirely. It does seem that bats have a problem with windmills in some locations.

      So that's what's happened to the lesser north sea bat! Or not.

      Wind turbines at sea can get much larger than on the land, have far fewer problems with turbulence and shear forces, and are generally a lot more cost effective. Combining them with localized power storage seems like a sensible approach (the one thing you can say for sure is that wind power isn't constant).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    18. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      I've heard the similar comments about solar cells, and if you think about it, it's bs. I can buy a solar panel that produces 250W for $400. Figure an average of 8hrs a day so that's about 2000kWh/day. Figure that it costs about $0.12/kWh from the power company, so $0.24/day*365 = $87/year. Typical estimates for solar panel lifetime is 20 years, so that far exceeds the amount paid for the panel. Now, keep in mind that the cells are just part of the cost of the panel, there's the frame, glass, and other parts, so say that the solar cells cost $200. Probably high; the $400 quoted is from Home Depot--not the cheapest source. Now, do you really think that if it took more than $200 worth of energy to make the solar cells for that panel, the company making the cells would have to charge more? Yes, my estimates are pretty rough, but I think I'm in the ballpark here. There are, of course, a lot of variables such as latitude, reduced output due to cloud cover, lower efficiency due to average angel of incident during the day, etcetera. If someone has better estimates, feel free to comment.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    19. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by swalve · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen one of those windmills? They are huge. They have stairs on the inside. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some kind of rudimentary elevator.

    20. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by swalve · · Score: 1

      But the giant smokestacks dumping heat and CO2 into the air have no effect??

    21. Re:Has anyone done an assessment... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Man! There's always some Joker that brings up problems with bats.

  6. Insensitive Clods by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Weather and sunlight are not, and cannot be, intermittent. They can be variable and cyclical, but not intermittent. There is always weather, and the sun does not shut down at sunset.

    The engineer in me wonders what happens when an extended period of calm, cloudy weather fails to yield enough surplus energy to pump up their doughnut.

    Perhaps they should consult the experts at Krispy Kreme.

    Or redesign it as a Belgian waffle?

    Now I'm sorry I missed breakfast.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Insensitive Clods by jamesh · · Score: 1

      There is always weather

      You're right. There was some weather today, not much yesterday, and I think not much tomorrow, but i've never seen a weather forecast of "none". There are times when there is very little weather though, and times when there is a lot.

    2. Re:Insensitive Clods by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      The sunlight reaching the solar panels is intermittent based on the types of weather. The TYPES of weather we receive are intermittent, also.

    3. Re:Insensitive Clods by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The engineer in me wonders what happens when an extended period of calm, cloudy weather fails to yield enough surplus energy to pump up their doughnut.

      It is a pretty rare event, on a similar level of probability to Belgian nuclear plants being forced to shut down in extreme hot weather. The solution will be the same in either case - ramp up other types of generation and maybe import some electricity.

      Really though wind in the North Sea is very reliable. Over short time spans it increases and decreases, but over a day or two and a moderately large area there is always plenty of base load available. This storage solves the "day or two" timeframe issue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. doughnut!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely a waffle shape would be better?

  8. Cost? Price? by jamesl · · Score: 1

    Once again we have a green/renewable energy plan that comes without a price tag. This stuff isn't free -- in fact it's pretty expensive. If people knew how expensive they'd, be more cautious about building.

    1. Re:Cost? Price? by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fossil fuel infrastructure costs just as much to build as does nuclear. This will just take longer to return the investment in terms of power that is paid for. Without value applied to pollution, cost of waste products, etc we can't measure the savings from using a non-polluting system (exclusive of the pollution costs to build it). If we did the return on investment could be seen as much higher than investment in other energy generation systems.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    2. Re:Cost? Price? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      What's the cost of the hostage situation in Algeria? You know, at the BP plant? And who is paying? For once the Wall Street Journal article does not delve into the economics at all.

    3. Re:Cost? Price? by catprog · · Score: 1

      You cannot allocate it to fossil fuels. If it was a solar factory you could not allocate it to renewable.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  9. Clean political story but ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After being named "the emperor of Ostend" Vande Lanotte needs to clean up his public image.
    Accusations of various conflicts of interest exist on the guy.
    A broader approval of this project is needed.
    He better makes sure this is a viable project and not a "prestige project" like some of the Dubai venture of the same companies proposing this.
    A similar approached is used with fresh water in Germany, unfortunately salt water is a lot more aggressive.
    Furtunately Belpex gives some verifyable data:
    http://belpex.be/index.php?id=5
    How long will the big spread in this data be profitable ?
    Are there some other ways of arbitraging this spread to a lower value ? Yes there are (smartgrid etc....),
    the same politicians and electricity monopolies are standing in the way of using these.

  10. Picture, some more info by De+Lemming · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is an article in Dutch which includes a rendering of the island.

    The capacity would be 300 MW, equivalent to a standard gas power station. It could provide electricity for 3 hours a day. This would be sufficient to intercept peak usage during morning and evening hours (1.5 hours each).

    One of the contractors would be the Belgian dredging company which also worked on the Palm Islands in the United Arab Emirates. Building of the island would take around 2 years. Price: around 800 million euros.

    1. Re:Picture, some more info by FreeTherapy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the daytime, there is a lack of energy in Belgium and energy needs to be imported from neighbor countries. Most of the energy in Belgium is used for (fully automated) industrial processes. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just make certain industries only run at night, when there is too much energy? This could be made an attractive option if nighttime energy prices are low enough. Also, 800 million euros is fucking insane! I estimate (too lazy to check facts and cite sources) investing that money in extra wind turbines instead of energy storage would produce an extra 1 gigawatt during the daytime. There would still be massive excess of energy at night, but hey, the government could use that to generate good ol' bitcoins! Government budget was never solved more quickly!

    2. Re:Picture, some more info by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite a few energy-hungry industries already use cheap night-time baseload electricity -- iron and steel foundries for example often do melts during the night and pour and cast during the day.

      As for the projected cost of 800 million Eu, that's about the regular price for pumped storage. Dinorwig and Cruachan in the UK cost about the same, roughly $200 million per GWhr of storage in today's money. Storage generally is expensive; pumped storage is cheap compared to batteries (about $1.5 billion per GWhr), capacitor banks, flywheels etc. It would be more productive to build a nuclear baseload generator station (500,000 GWhr of generation @1.5GW over a 60-year lifespan for about $20 billion construction and lifetime operating costs) but that's not too likely due to nuclear being scary.

    3. Re:Picture, some more info by sturle · · Score: 2

      1 GW extra wind power capacity will only work when the wind blows. When you are in the middle of a low pressure, you don't have any wind, but you just had a lot of it, and you are going to get a lot of it in a few hours. That's why you need storage with wind power. Just adding extra wind power will not solve the problem.

      When it's windy in countries with a lot of wind power, the price of power will go below 0. This happened several times in Denmark last year. (Check http://nordpoolspot.com/ for real time prices and statistics.) In Denmark, to choose a country with much wind power and good power transmission capacity to neighbour countries with storage (Norway and Sweden), the price of power typically varies 20 EUR/MWh during the day. Sometimes as much as 50 EUR/MWh. Probably more in Belgium due to low exchange capacity to countries with storage. When the wind turbines produce the most, the price will be lowest. This island will store the cheap electricity and release it when it is expensive. This island will almost certainly be more profitable than 1 GWh extra wind power.

      The island will also be able to harvest tidal energy. As the tides change, so will the difference in water level on the inside and outside of the island.

      Btw: Bitcoin production is shifting over to ASICs, which don't use that much electricity.

    4. Re:Picture, some more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the issues we had in May last year:
      High winds and lots of sun made solar panels and wind turbines generate far above average power. The result was that their was way to much energy being pumped into the grid and their is nothing currently available to store the excess or to quickly reduce production.
      The problem was so bad that if France wasn't willing (they got paid handsomely for it) to dispense of that excess energy, the grid itself would've been severely damaged.
      Hopefully this island would be able to store excess production and release it when needed. This type of technology is a necessity if you want to seriously increase energy production from alternative sources.

    5. Re:Picture, some more info by GauteL · · Score: 1

      As someone else have pointed out, this already happens where feasible. But what happens if you have a factory which operates 24/7 with almost everyone being shift workers?

      If it was to operate 8 hours per day only, it would need three times the production capacity in order to complete in 8 hours what it normally does in 24. This would mean a massive, costly and inefficient expansion in terms of area and equipment. Equipment which would just sit idle for 16 hours a day.

      Also, your shift workers who now may do one night shift in three, would have to always work during the night.

    6. Re:Picture, some more info by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm 800M euro and a working system in 2 years with no failure mode vs some 10's of Billions and a 5+ year wait with a disaster level failure mode. Both will last at least 25 years. One has very low maintenance costs while the other has extremely regulated, hence expensive maintenance costs.

      Let me tally up a few figures on a napkin back here... Okay, you're right Nuclear, wait miscarried the 1. Nope, gravity wins!!!! Yes gravity is the more efficient force to harness in this scenario.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:Picture, some more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a matter of planing for the future. A country, any country will increase it's energy demands over the years, they could do as you said, but it would only postpone the inevitable.

    8. Re:Picture, some more info by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Amount of electricity created from fuel/wind/wave/solar/hamsters by proposed Belgian pumped storage system, zero. Amount of electricity wasted in operational losses by Belgian pumped storage system, 30%. Cost (estimated), 800 million Eu (about $1 billion US).

      Nuclear generation costs about $30,000 per GWhr for fuel, waste disposal, operation, staffing etc. A modern 1.5GW reactor will cost about $5-10 billion for construction (the Chinese EPRs at Taishan are coming in at less than $5 billion, the Finnish and French EPRs are about $10 billion and counting) and will run for at least 60 years at 90% uptime, creating about 500,000 GWhr at an operating cost of $15 billion on top of construction costs giving a total amortised cost of about 5 US cents/kWhr.

      Costs of running a pumped-storage system are not that easy to find and difficult to compare with an offshore system where oilrig prices might be applicable, requiring helicopters and ships for access versus cars and trucks as land-based pumped-storage systems use. One set of figures I saw for the Dinorwig pumped-storage system in Wales (up to 1.6GW on demand, about 8GWhr total capacity) was $25 million per annum, and again that system doesn't create any electricity itself, just wastes some in storage losses.

    9. Re:Picture, some more info by discord5 · · Score: 1

      It would be more productive to build a nuclear baseload generator station

      Nuclear simply isn't an option in Belgium at the moment. After Fukushima the usual scaremongering got far far worse, which isn't to say that some of the criticisms are valid, but the scaremongering extends into the realm of the unscientific at times. Of course the nuclear industry has been running save-face ad campaigns, but the power company exploiting the nuclear power plants has come under fire by the press for making record profits while refusing to pay the rather new nuclear tax. To add to that, after inspection several nuclear reactors had been found to have cracks in their housing and needed to be shut down for repairs.

      So in short, our government bows to public pressure to shut down the plants, but does so in an unrealistic schedule (that is to say, without a significant price hike due to the need to import more power). Two reactors have been shut down and it is currently unknown when they will restart (last inspection revealed that the cracks were fixed, but the committee is scheduling another inspection soon, and I haven't followed the news surrounding this). Electrabel is currently playing a high stakes pokergame with our government regarding taxes and the continued operation of the nuclear power plants. There are other issues with the policy around our electricity network, which are mostly problems our government has created for itself such as "green power certificates" (for a lack of better translation) which boosted the sales of roof mounted solar power units, but ended up costing the taxpayers unable to afford these units far too much, as businesses starting installing a ton of these units, and many more of these kinds of issues that are not related to the whole nuclear debate...

      Aside from that there is a heavy emphasis on uninformed misinformation from both sides through social media. It was only two weeks ago that I saw a map of the tidal effects of the march 2011 tsunami in Japan being passed off as a "fallout map" of Fukushima which covered the entire globe. To give you an idea of how ridiculous it was, it was NOAA imagery with a goddamn legend attached, which of course nobody bothered to read. It's much more fun to assume that the red part of the map is fallout. It's needless to say that the nuclear fans are spreading their own misinformation: such as fear of power shortages, blackouts, peak power usage causing overload to renewable energy resources, etc etc etc. While I'm not saying that people are not allowed to have their opinions on the matter, in fact I'd encourage it, but I'd prefer people to at least look at facts rather than the hearsay passed through social networks.

      I can only applaud efforts to have more environmentally friendly power sources, and it is in my opinion important in the both long and short term to focus on developing better and more efficient technology and deploying it more widespread. For the short term, I think our government is trying to be too ambitious with their stance and it will end up costing Joe Average and small/medium sized business, only to prolong the date of our nuclear exit when faced with our powerconsumption. At the core of the matter lies that both businesses and homes are using a lot of power, and while price can significantly drop that power consumption I fear that many families who are currently already struggling to pay their bills will end up becoming the victim of this, a group slowly but surely on the rise.

      Some would argue that my stance is wanting to have my cake and eat it, but I like to think of it as not putting all my eggs in one basket, especially not at an economically critical time like this.

    10. Re:Picture, some more info by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      That 30% loss you refer could rather be viewed as a 70% gain. We're talking about storing energy that would otherwise be lost completely (thrown away due to lack of storage).

      The numbers presented can be taken as incremental energy newly available. Net gain.

      Run your figures again.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    11. Re:Picture, some more info by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ha, what are you smoking, $20bn for a nuclear plant to be built, operated for 60 years and decommissioned? Maybe for the plant operator, but the government will certainly pay a lot more. Nuclear plants can't even get insurance, so the cost of that is pretty much incalculable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Picture, some more info by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      AFAIK all the major contracts are gobbled up by the 4 belgian / dutch companies. De Nul, Dredging(Deme), Van Oord, or Boskalis. If you want some decent mudslinging done anywhere, there's only one place to go.

    13. Re:Picture, some more info by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Yes, except your nuclear power plant is completely useless and crap for domestic power generation. It will generate that 1.5GW of power just the same in the middle of the night when everyone is asleep with the electricity off as it generates it in the middle of the day. Even wind generators can be feathered back to stop generating power when there is too much already. With nuclear this comes back to needing pumped storage in any case. Suddenly that 70% efficiency isn't looking too bad.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    14. Re:Picture, some more info by tsotha · · Score: 1

      ...sure, if you pretend wind turbines (the things that actually produce the power) are free. And you assume the nuclear plants will have cost overruns, but not your donut (even though it's the first of its kind). And also assuming there's some equivalence between a plant that generates 24 gWh of power a day and a big tank that stores only 900 mWh.

      Yes, making all those assumptions this thing will be more efficient.

      You didn't do well in math, did you?

    15. Re:Picture, some more info by catprog · · Score: 1

      Probably the same assumption you are making where the nuclear plant is going to have customers willing to buy the power all the time.

      It is not just wind turbine that produce the power but also the nuclear plants they can't turn off.

      Nuclear plant:Base load power
      Pumped Storage: Peaker plant

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    16. Re:Picture, some more info by catprog · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean Giga and Mega and not milli and what ever g is.

      24GWh for 10 billion .9GWh for .8 billion

      10 / .8 = 12.5

      Works out at about
      11.25GWh for 10 billion.

      Now Nuclear plants will not have a demand during the night so not all of the 24GWh will be used. (say 6 hours of no demand) so works out about 18GWh of usable power.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    17. Re:Picture, some more info by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      You are correct.

      There are certain industries where energy cost is much larger than production capacity and employment, but this idea will already be applied.

    18. Re:Picture, some more info by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      Storage will be needed when we eventually shift completely towards renewable sources, but in the meantime, there are natural gas plants in Belgium which could fill the gap in case there is no wind for a short while (low air pressure). (High air pressure means there won't be a lot of wind for a much longer while, but will increase chances of sunshine, so this is covered) There is a natural gas plant, built in the nineties, which was recently shut down by the owner to push prices up. What if this gas plant (at least 300MW) would only run when there's a lack of power? How about shutting down natural gas plants which are currently running 24/7 when there is lots of wind and starting it when there is a lack? (Natural gas plants can be started up very quickly) This would be a faster, cheaper, yet more gradual approach in a country which lacks behind dramatically when it comes to renewable power (28,1% of produced power still comes from natural gas).

      Yes, I've heard about energy prices below zero on the news (happened in Belgium as well a couple of weeks ago because of the warm weather).

      But I wonder, how can this happen? Producer paying somebody to consume electricity? Why not just shut production down? How does the transport infrastructure company get its share? Does it also have to pay?

    19. Re:Picture, some more info by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      Damn right nuclear is scary, I just shit my pants!

      With 20 billion for 60 years, nuclear is also quite cheap, but don't forget that after those 60 years, the plant still has to be disassembled, keeping costs going. Eventually, difference isn't so big. Maybe even equal if you calculate the small risk of a nuclear disaster (Chernobyl disaster is estimated at costing 436 billion dollars for just Ukraine (235 billion) and Belarus (201 billion) combined) and smaller accidents.

      Also, don't forget that renewable energy has a more "distributed" character, making it possible for small companies to operate on the energy market, pushing prices down MUCH further than when you have one company producing over 50% of all electricity in the country (as is the case with Electrabel owning both Belgian nuclear plants).

    20. Re:Picture, some more info by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      The cost of decommissioning nuclear plants is embedded in that pricetag along with waste disposal costs, insurance premiums, taxes paid to the government etc. Nuclear power station operators in the US, Britain etc. pay into a decommissioning fund during operations as well as paying a levy per kWhr generated for fuel waste disposal. Other places like Germany also supertax their nuclear generators for each refuelling cycle to help fund their renewables subsidy efforts.

      It's not that difficult to decommission nuclear plants; almost all of the radioactive material is in the fuel rods which are removed at end-of-life for reprocessing and waste management just like any refuelling operation. The slight residual radioactivity of the reactor vessel decays into insignificance over a few decades; in the UK reactor buildings are mothballed for a custodianship period before they are demolished, in other places such as the US the reactor vessel is sometimes removed promptly and buried in a pit for the same period before it is recycled. The radioactive material in the vessel structure is not mobile and can't pollute air or groundwater noticeably unlike some of the fission products in the fuel rods (cesium salts, iodine etc.) which, if they are released into the environment by accident can significantly pollute large areas like fossil-fuel thermal generating plants do as a matter of course.

    21. Re:Picture, some more info by FreeTherapy · · Score: 1

      Very well, but in the end, there is still the disadvantage of being a dirty source of energy. Better than fossil (CO2 isn't a joke), but worse than renewable.

      In the ideal world, nuclear is a clean solution, but in reality, waste somehow ends up being dumped by the Italian mafia:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/shipwreck-waste-mafia-italy

      Now how can such a thing happen? Even though governments have very strict regulations, in the end, the safety inspector is easily bribed.

      Nuclear power also originated from research done by the military because of its interest in making bombs. No nuclear power, no excuse for a country to buy uranium.

      Even though there are strict inspection schemes, a Belgian company still managed to export uranium to Iran:

      http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standaard.be%2Fartikel%2Fdetail.aspx%3Fartikelid%3DUO321IS9&act=url

      Also, there are Belgian companies which make equipment that can be used for making bombs. (uranium still needs to be purified) Iran, disguised as a German company, managed to get a Belgian company to export such equipment by boat to Italy (they said they wanted some pre-processing done there). then, when in the mediterrean sea, they managed to make the boat go to Turkey instead. In Turkey, a truck took the equipment to Iran. I saw this in a locally broadcasted documentary and I wish I could find a link but I can't.

  11. Tidal by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they're going to this much effort to store/release coastal water, wouldn't it be easier to just rely on the daily tides instead? No wind turbines required.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Tidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that does not store any energy.

    2. Re:Tidal by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      The point of this scheme is not the generation of electricity, but to enable better matching between demand and supply (peak shaving). A pumped storage station can store excess generated power and then supply a variable amount of power on short notice, something that's difficult to do with other power generation options.

    3. Re:Tidal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a generator it's a load balancer.

      The point of it is not to generate more electricity, it's to store the excess energy from when supply is high/demand low and release it when supply is low/demand high.

  12. AKA pumped storage by david.given · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a very old idea, although most countries don't need to build artificial islands to do it. For example, the Ben Cruachan pumped storage plant in Scotland uses two lochs at different levels. Energy is stored by pumping water from the low one to the high one.

    Pumped storage power stations are typically used for short-term handling of power spikes; if you get sudden load on the electricity network, you can spin up a pumped storage plant in minutes --- sometimes seconds if you know that a spike is due and can prepare --- while traditional oil, coal and nuclear can take hours. So the pumped storage plant handles the load while the big power stations rev up.

    Drawbacks involve not being very efficient ---Wikipedia says 70-80% --- and they don't store that much energy. Ben Cruachan, for example, can only generate 440MW for 22 hours before running dry. They're also environmentally rather poor (although not nearly as bad as the alternatives, which are usually fast-start gas turbines, of course).

    Using an artificial island is an interesting idea. If you're using off-shore wind farms then the power generation is local and you save on infrastructure and transmission costs; you avoid destroying valuable mountainside (although at the expense of destroying valuable sea bottom); it's close to the coastal cities which would be using the power... does anyone have a link to more technical information? Like how big it is? The linked article is almost entirely content-free.

    1. Re:AKA pumped storage by Thorodin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember as a kid, Consumer's Power and Detroit Edison built the Ludington Pumped Storage facility which can generate quite a bit of power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant

    2. Re:AKA pumped storage by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      In Belgium there is the +/- 1200 MW Coo-Trois-Ponts Hydroelectric Power Station in service since the sixties. I think this project is more an excuse to build an island as half the energy is to be found in tidal optimization.

    3. Re:AKA pumped storage by LourensV · · Score: 1

      Using an artificial island is an interesting idea. If you're using off-shore wind farms then the power generation is local and you save on infrastructure and transmission costs; you avoid destroying valuable mountainside (although at the expense of destroying valuable sea bottom).

      Nothing to destroy there, the North Sea is pretty much an industrial wasteland. Fish populations were decimated long ago, all that's left is oil drilling rigs, shipping lanes, pipelines and wind farms. So an artificial island more or less is not going to be a problem in that respect, and the Low Countries don't have a lot of mountainside, valuable or not. Actually, it's not inconceivable that birds might breed on the island, away from most human influence. The wind turbines may be a problem for them though, not sure.

    4. Re:AKA pumped storage by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      80% is pretty good! And doing it all offshore could cut down on the environmental impact, provided they've got enough openings for the water such that they're not sucking in the sea life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:AKA pumped storage by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      70-80% is not very efficient? I'm actually totally blown away that it is this efficient!

  13. Sure, but when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't hold your breath on this one. Given the speed at which the Belgian administration works, as well as the damage that pressure groups can do in this country, we'll have cheap nuclear fusion long before all licences and permits for this island have been granted.

  14. d) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dr. Evil is using this as a cover to build a "secret" lair.

    He is Belgian, after all!

  15. Have they considered rain ? by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    While they are busy pumping water out at night, North Sea rains could pour water in their waterhole 24 hours a day. It would be wiser to pump water up into the artificial lake, so that rain will just add energy to the system. But for sure this has been designed by a belgian engineer...

    1. Re:Have they considered rain ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While they are busy pumping water out at night, North Sea rains could pour water in their waterhole 24 hours a day. It would be wiser to pump water up into the artificial lake, so that rain will just add energy to the system. But for sure this has been designed by a belgian engineer...

      Fairly sure that annual rainfall would be a minimal consideration if they are pumping even just a few metres of water each day... and an island that had two lakes at different elevations would be much more expensive to make with a lower capacity than a single laked island the same size.

    2. Re:Have they considered rain ? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      If you have the storage lake at a higher level than the surrounding sea, you have to build a dike to that higher level. When the storage lake sits at a lower level, you only have to account for sea level + wave height.

      Also, precipitation only accounts for a few cm per day.

    3. Re:Have they considered rain ? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      While they are busy pumping water out at night, North Sea rains could pour water in their waterhole 24 hours a day. It would be wiser to pump water up into the artificial lake, so that rain will just add energy to the system. But for sure this has been designed by a belgian engineer...

      You do realise, do you, that since the rest of the surrounding North Sea isn't roofed over, rainfall will raise the water level both inside and outside by the same amount, so the difference in levels will stay exactly the same?

      Having a "hole in the sea" has the added benefit that the melting polar caps (global warming) will raise the sea level, increasing the difference in levels, thus actually adding energy to the system.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    4. Re:Have they considered rain ? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      If you do think the above is quite serious, you might want to look at http://what-if.xkcd.com/23/ (and search for the word "downspouts"). Interesting, or at least entertaining.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    5. Re:Have they considered rain ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a belgian engineer, I can tell you didn't consider the orders of magnitude of difference between meters of rainfall/day and meters of tide action per day.
      Less than 1% of tide action would be sufficient to nullify rainfall, the other 99% is gain, you scheme would throw away the 99% in favor of the 1%.

  16. Energy demand is variable by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The scheme is not as much about price arbitrage as about smoothing demand.

    There's more demand for energy during the evenings than during the mornings, and price differences will never be able to eliminate that. No one will turn off their lights in the evening to turn them on during the morning, no matter what the prices are.

    The effect of energy storage are to allow a steady supply, like wind, to be used when it's most needed. Storage would be even more important if solar energy is used, for obvious reasons.

  17. Belgium Donuts by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    Do they come with different dipping sauces?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  18. dipping sauce for donuts?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mayonnaise?

  19. replacing nuclear with wind by ssam · · Score: 1

    if you switch from nuclear to wind you give no benefit to the environment. while there is still fossil fuel power on the grid its irresponsible to reduce nuclear capacity.

    Dont forget that electricity currently accounts for only about 20-30% of energy use. to go carbon neutral we need to electrify home heating/cooking and transport. even if we make everything more efficient as we do this, we still need to double electricity generating capacity.

  20. Sounds like something from Gilligan's Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Professor will use the stored energy to power the radio he fashioned out of a coconut, so the seven can entertain themselves while they wait to be rescued.

  21. Slashdot and its camel-case titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me as a non-native english speaker, it's sometimes hard to read Slashdot titles. After reading this headline I somehow thought at Iceland and couldn't figure out what meaning is behind this title. This is so annoying!!!!!1

  22. Reduce price! by fireballrus · · Score: 1

    Why not just reduce price and thus not "loose" energy? Why whenever I come to Europe, all I hear is "energy saving" by all means, when it turns out they just loose the energy instead of selling it cheaper? There could be a special, cheap night tariff for electricity, and it would solve the problem way better than spending huge amount of money on building an artificial island.

    1. Re:Reduce price! by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what currently happens. This is about the fact that they generate more energy than they need sometimes from wind, and could store it for when they do need it for spikes.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
  23. The island is to be shaped like a doughnut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unfortunately, it all goes horribly wrong when they don't specify the type of doughnut, and the contractors model it after a jam-filled one. :-)

  24. lifting land instead by drago · · Score: 1

    Some time ago I read an article where a German professor suggested to dig out a cylindrical hole of some 100 meters across and lift it with the excess energy. There was a nice mock up picture going along with it, showing a house and a cow being lifted ;-)

  25. Pumped Hydro Storage Well Proven by anorlunda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pumped storage hydro is a superb way to store and retrieve electric energy. Indeed it is the only proven way to do it on a massive scale.

    Power engineers love pumped storage facilities because of a long list of desirable properties they have. From the power grid point of view, they blend well with everything ever done in the past or contemplated in the future.

    USA slashdotters may be interested to hear that the Blenheim-Gilboa pumped storage facility has been aiding the reliability and affordability of electric power in New York State and New York City for decades.

    The innovation in the Belgian case is to do it using a hole in the water instead of a lake on a mountain top. I'm sure that it will present it's own engineering challenges, but nothing insurmountable comes to mind. We should all wish them good luck.

    1. Re:Pumped Hydro Storage Well Proven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. This is awesome! A hole in the water. Just think about it.

  26. Compressed air by fredan · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest problems with electricity is that it is difficult to store

    no shit, sherlock.

    Perhaps you shouldn't concentrate so much on electricity directly.

    Rebuild your wind farm to produce compressed air instead of electricity.

    1. Re:Compressed air by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Compressed air is much less efficient to store than electricity, mainly due to thermal losses.

  27. is electricity the only source of revenue ? by blauwbaard · · Score: 1

    Couple of years ago the nearby town of Knokke was trying to build a yacht-harbour and build a similar construction along the Zeebrugge harbour. Their intention was to finance the needed dike by selling premium apartments (with a premium sea-view). They could never convince the politicians, public and the investors together. Maybe the socialist Vande Lanotte should look at raising some "different" money for raising money for his "green" idea ?

  28. enough information for a full scale bet ? by blauwbaard · · Score: 1

    The ROI should be justifiable by the data on this website: http://belpex.be/index.php?id=5 Electricity prices rise and fall during the day, between high and low values. The interview talks about 300 MW of power inside the island. During a total of 3 Hours every day, two times 1.5 hours per day. How much return for the invested energy, is this at 100 % or maybe only 80 % or 40 % "Dredgers" should be facing some return for their investment like this. Not enough parameters to make a full scale bet I would say. Right now wind energy is increasing the spread on the Belpex prices. How much lower will the spread become if the "island" is introduced, are there other technologies to achieve the same??

  29. Local jobs - good publicity by spectrokid · · Score: 2, Informative

    chalk this one up as cheap publicity for the politician. I AM Belgian, and right now the vast majority of electricity comes from Nuclear. We simply do not have enough wind power yet to justify such an investment. Note that Belgium is a world leader in dredging (we did the dubai artificial islands), and that the biggest dredging company is in the politicians constituency.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:Local jobs - good publicity by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      TFA article mentions that you are aiming for 2.3GW from wind, compared to the 3GW you get from nuclear. Seems like it would make a pretty big dent. Those nuclear plants will need replacing eventually anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Local jobs - good publicity by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You will find wind and nuclear power have different capacity factors. It would take a lot more then 3GW or wind power to replace 3GW of nukes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  30. Reminds ne of a SciFi story involving teleportatio by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    where they used these floating islands to dissipate the residual energy of moving someone from point A to point B. The idea being that the moving the person without doing so would be fatal to them.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  31. Why don't they... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    ... simply fart into a balloon?

    ... and then let it go, zipping all through the room, when they want to retrieve the power of their wind?

  32. Well, just be careful then. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Belgium? I thought pumping donuts was a Greek thing.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  33. Belgium. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0
    Remember, this is the country where people follow their GPS for 2 days on a trip which should only haved lasted 30 minutes.

    Yes indeed, in Belgium nothing is impossible! I guess the poor GPS simply wanted to get home!

    1. Re:Belgium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the rare random anti-Belgium soliloquy generalizing an entire population from a single anecdote. I guess that it's a nice change of pace from the usual anti-US fare. Just as pointless, but bravo nonetheless.

    2. Re:Belgium. by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      90 miles in 30 minutes? Damn...Belgium has some crazy speed limits

    3. Re:Belgium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was distracted, so I kept driving. I saw all kinds of traffic signs, first in French, then German and finally in Croatian, but I kept driving because I was distracted. Suddenly I appeared in Zagreb and I realized I wasn't in Belgium anymore.

      Sounds like a classical case of dementia to me. Belgium, the country where 67-year old women with dementia exist! Tell me good sir, where do you live? Do people get old enough to develop dementia in your utopia?

      Also note that:

      - I think "distracted" is a bad translation of the Dutch word "verstrooid", which in this context should be translated to "absent-minded".

      - I apologize for modding you "flamebait", that should have been "offtopic". Not undoing it, though; close enough.

  34. Mechanical pumps more Energy Efficient? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    I saw something like this 3 years ago. The idea was to pump air into a large cave for storage. The air pressure would power the electric turbines on demand. They figured it was overall more efficient for the wind turbines to run mechanical pumps rather than generate electricity to run the air pumps.

    Not sure how closely this applies

    1. Re:Mechanical pumps more Energy Efficient? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Like bag pipes on a slightly larger and hopefully quieter scale.

  35. Deus Ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon...Panchaea

  36. Hole in the water by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    So they want to store energy in a hole in the water. I thought Holy Water was patented by the Catholic Church.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  37. So cool to trash the government by microbox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People constantly trash the government because it is the cool thing to do, but really, what do you know at how well the government operates compared to a fortune 500? Nothing? I used to work for both, and can say firsthand that there is plenty of institutional madness to go around.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  38. Troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how this will be effective/economical. In order to store a significant amount of power it will either need to be quite deep, or quite large. Both of which would make putting it out to sea problematic. If you make it deep it will require shoring up the walls, making it expensive. Or if you make it large you will require a LOT of rock, making it expensive. The only way I can figure this working is to choose a shallow area of the seabed with a medium density rock, begin excavating that rock and dumping it at the edges of your "island" area. When your done it would look less like a "doughnut" and more like a meteorite crater. But that will require A LOT of equipment & time, again, making it expensive.

    1. Re:Troubles by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Or if you make it large you will require a LOT of rock, making it expensive

      You don't need rock (see example (Palm Jumeira)). Sand is O.K. and easier to handle. The "low lands" Belgium and Netherlands have some experience handling sand.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  39. Nope. by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    It's turtles, all the way down.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  40. Borrowing limit? by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

    Belgium is one of only 15 nations in the world with a debt to GDP ration of about 100% or higher (the US is another by the way). Their credit rating was recently downgraded, and last year the EU forced them to implement austerity measures. Might be tough to fund something like this.

    1. Re:Borrowing limit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, despite having a high dept-to-GDP ratio, Belgium is actually able to borrow money at negative interest rates these days. (http://www.sanduskyregister.com/blog/futures-file/2917131)

  41. Why not desalinate water instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I read potable water is out greatest need. Why not use excess energy for this?

  42. New island in navigable waters... by Max_W · · Score: 1

    what can possibly go wrong.

  43. MOD UP by fritsd · · Score: 1

    That is the most insightful posting I've read about renewable energy in a long while.

    It's much cheaper to smelt the steel for the turbine towers using coal-electricity than using wind-electricity, so it must be built *RIGHT NOW*.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  44. Typically the turbines are large by dbIII · · Score: 1

    In 1996 I did a bit of work at a fairly small pump storage plant (something like 2 x 250MW units). The casing had been removed and I entered the pipework by climbing without difficulty between two turbine blades. That's how large these things are.
    They had steel mesh at the lake end of the inlet up above but I'm sure plenty of small fish get through. The number of cormorants and the large numbers of the biggest freshwater turtles I've ever seen patiently waiting at the outlet net (cormorants perched on the floats) implied that a lot of very confused little fish get dumped out of the outlet when it's running.

  45. Funny how so many people get this wrong by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's much cheaper to smelt the steel for the turbine towers using coal-electricity than using wind-electricity, so it must be built *RIGHT NOW*.

    I know it's an easy mistake to make, but it does look very stupid misinformation just the same to anyone with a rough grasp on the chemistry.
    The reason coal is used to produce iron and steel is mainly due to the chemical reaction of carbon in the coal and the oxygen in the iron ore and not the actual heat input. Typically natural gas or electricity is used for any later steps where only heat is required. For example, at the steelworks where I worked in the 1990s which was built almost on top of a coal mine the blast furnace was run on coal (to give that chemical reaction I mentioned above), but the billets were reheated in a gas furnace to be rolled into steel rod or bar. There were a variety of reasons as to why it was cheaper and more convenient to use gas (not gasoline) piped in from the local refinery and made from imported crude for heating instead of the coal that was almost underfoot. Other places that actually melted and cast the steel used arc furnaces. Outside of China (and maybe not even there these days) coal is rarely used to melt steel for casting, just used to make it out of iron ore and make it into billets of steel in the first place.

    So even if the last coal fired power station shut down tomorrow we'd still need to dig some coal up if we want iron and steel.

    1. Re:Funny how so many people get this wrong by fritsd · · Score: 1

      My knowledge of steel making stops at the 19th century Bessemer process :-)
      But that's not what I meant; I said it too cryptically. What I meant was: to build infrastructure that can facilitate our descent into 21st century living conditions (probably better than 19th century but worse than 20th century energy abundance), we'd better use the cheap electricity we have at the moment.

      We need electricity in the coming centuries. Fossil fuels are finite, coal may last 300 years but even then we want to minimize CO2 production because the greenhouse effect is going to be bad enough as it is (see Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources).
      I know that Aluminium production is done with electrolysis so uses a fuck lot of electricity; as you say steelworks can use natural gas to keep the steel hot, but I bet a factory like Hoogovens/Corus/Tata Steel Europe in IJmuiden uses a fuck lot of electricity as well.

      The point I tried to unsuccessfully make is, that since we need a lot of metal to build electricity generating infrastructure (wind turbine pylons, solar troughs, you name it), and since the production of that lot of metal itself uses up a metric fuckload of electricity, the long term most efficient strategy (we're talking 300 years or so here) must surely be to produce that lot of metal (precursor materials for future energy generating infrastructure) in the time that we have left while the current infrastructure based on fossil fuels and nuclear fission is still operational and provides cheap and plentiful electricity.

      The only alternative is to wait until we have to smelt all that metal with renewable electricity, but that would just be more expensive.

      Did I make more sense this time? Thx.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    2. Re:Funny how so many people get this wrong by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My knowledge of steel making stops at the 19th century Bessemer process [wikipedia.org] :-)

      With respect, it's the step before that that produces the molten iron that I mentioned above (blast furnace).
      My point is that fossil fuels are not simply something to burn but in many cases they are feedstock for something else. Coal to produce iron and steel. Gas to get hydrogen, then ammonia, then sulphate of ammonia to use to grow crops.

      the long term most efficient strategy (we're talking 300 years or so here) must surely be to produce that lot of metal

      I very strongly disagree. Minerals processing is not a field that is sitting still. For example there is a technique for producing titanium that is under development that could reduce the energy costs to produce the metal by more than an order of magnitude. It works in the lab, it's being scaled up now, and it's expected to bring the cost of titanium down towards magnesium prices (cheap enough to go in the original VW beetle) in the next ten years or so. Surface technology (now mostly called nanotechnology to ride the nanomachine hype wave even though it's mostly just about small grains of material doing stuff) is progressing at a rapid rate and so many things behave so differently at a sub-micron scale that we're going to find some processes that can be vastly improved just by grinding things up a bit more and adding a few extra things.
      While it can be argued that we are in the days of cheap energy and it may all be downhill from here (I hope not), it can also be argued that less energy intensive ways of extracting ore and producing metals are being developed over time. If it's twice as difficult to produce the energy in the future it's still not worth using it to stockpile metal now if the energy cost to produce the metal by a new process is less than twice what it is now. Considering how much energy is expended just getting to ore bodies before extraction happens it's not far fetched to consider such large improvements, especially since we've seen plenty of improvements of that scale or more over the last century. After a few drinks with a mining engineer in 1990 or so he lamented that so much of the work is just getting to small seams of ore thinner than a tunnel big enough to stand up in, so why not have some sort of directional drill or little robot at the end of a little tunnel that just gets to the good stuff and bores it out. Things like that are getting closer to the realms of possibility.
      I also don't really see a large gap coming where electricity power generation is scarce. A power station near me has recently mothballed something like 700MW of baseload capacity mostly due to so many people in my state putting photovoltaic panels on their roofs (and the grid coped in that state during a recent heat wave). China is building more wind power capacity this year than currently exists in the USA. Lessons learned there and elsewhere are likely to lead to major improvements and make wind and energy storage more viable each year.

    3. Re:Funny how so many people get this wrong by Floyd-ATC · · Score: 1

      They seem to disagree with you in Dubai, where they're using surplus energy to produce as much aluminium as they can and stockpiling it because they expect the energy prices to go up, up and then up some more.

      --
      Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
  46. Has anyone fired up some brain cells by dbIII · · Score: 1

    For those who think the above makes sense, consider how buildings or a few trees do a lot more to airflow than the world's largest windmill. It doesn't take more than a couple of seconds thought to expose the lie above.
    To the poster above, are you some silly parrot that didn't put in the two seconds of thought before repeating a lie or are you a liar looking for some suckers to mislead? WTF is it with this luddite bullshit? My paycheck comes from resource industries, so oil, coal and even uranium, but if you think you want to help me and the industries I work for by telling such stupid lies you can just go and fuck off and try to "help" somebody else.

    1. Re:Has anyone fired up some brain cells by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Cities affect the weather. On warm days you often find clouds, sometimes with rain, below wind.

      I would not draw conclusions about not going further with it.

      --
      nosig today
  47. Compare the shuttle to the F9/FH by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The shuttle in terms of its engines are far more efficient than the merlins on the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Yet, the F9/dragon takes a crew of 7 to LEO for 120M, and the FH takes 54 tonnes to LEO for 100 M. OTOH, the shuttle being more energy efficient could take 7 ppl and 25 tonnes in one trip. Of course, it cost 1.5 BILLION per launch.

    So, you tell us, what matters more: the efficiency of the storage, or the costs of the storage?

    That is why I keep saying that we should be pushing thermal storage combined with a Natural Gas boiler back-up. The thermal storage will have be around 50% efficiency. However, it is a CHEAP means of storage, with the ability to provide load balancing for a variable grid. Yes, you lose about 50% of the energy stored, HOWEVER, this is still cheap while building out AE systems (geo-thermal, wind, solar, etc) AND getting cheaper storage.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  48. What happens by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

    when it rains? And fills your donut hole in?

    Seems like a better idea to use the windmills to pump water into elevated tanks. Put the tank on a hill and you can get a larger pressure differential than seems possible with this method. Make a grated roof and take advantage of the rain...

    --
    Howdy howdy howdy
  49. Just use the Netherlands by formfeed · · Score: 1

    If you check the map, you'll see that the IJsselmeer is actually a sea bay that's been closed of with a dam (the Afsluitdijk). It used to be called the Zuiderzee (South Sea).

    Which brings me back to my original plan: Why not just use the Netherlands?

    (1) Large parts of the Netherlands are below sea level, so there would be no risk of flooding neighboring areas.
    (2) There are already pumps and dike-systems everywhere, so the conversion costs would be minimal.
    (3) Houseboats, Barges, swimming apartments are really cool.
    (4) For starters one could do peak use in the summer months only. And the Dutch wouldn't really mind, because they're in Italy at that time.

  50. You misread the article by Krigl · · Score: 1
    It's about 3,000 MW each - 2,919 for Doel and 2,985 for Tihange.

    From Wikipedia:

    At the start of 2012, there were 498 operational wind turbines in Belgium, with a capacity of 1080 MW. [2] The amount of electricity generated from wind energy has surpassed 2 TWh per year. [1]

    and

    Electricity consumption in Belgium has increased slowly since 1990 and nuclear power provides 54%, 45 billion kWh per year, of the country’s electricity.[1]

    Excluding some magical increase of wind conditions to radically change capacity factor, 2.3GW would just raise those 2-odd TWh/year to somewhere near 5 TWh/y, thus making the dent rather unimpressive. And that's without counting in the intermittency of wind which would need to be balanced by pumped storage plants which are quite lossy not to mention nonexistent (at least in the required capacity) and based on a completely different economic model (pump up using cheap night electricity and generating during peaks).
    The artificial island as pumped storage is indeed cool and useful idea but its 300 MW for 5 hours are not gonna make that much of a dent.

    Sorry for being uncool and boringly realistic spoilsport, but seriously people, there would be no need for it if you just did your math (and fact checking) for yourself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_generation_in_Belgium.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Belgium
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Belgium
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Typical_capacity_factors

    --
    Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!