Slashdot Mirror


World's First Floating Windfarm To Take Shape Off Coast of Scotland (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The world's first floating windfarm has taken to the seas in a sign that a technology once confined to research and development drawing boards is finally ready to unlock expanses of ocean for generating renewable power. After two turbines were floated this week, five now bob gently in the deep waters of a fjord on the western coast of Norway ready to be tugged across the North Sea to their final destination off north-east Scotland. The ~$256 million Hywind project is unusual not just because of the pioneering technology involved, which uses a 78-meter-tall underwater ballast and three mooring lines that will be attached to the seabed to keep the turbines upright. It is also notable because the developer is not a renewable energy firm but Norway's Statoil, which is looking to diversify away from carbon-based fuels.

123 comments

  1. Whoopdee doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, whoopdee doo Basil. But what does it all mean?

    1. Re: Whoopdee doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Austin Powers for the win.

    2. Re:Whoopdee doo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that President Trump will sever relations with Scotland for letting a windfarm ruin the view from one of his majestic tee boxes

    3. Re:Whoopdee doo by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Call me when this can pay for itself.

  2. Floating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shucks, I was hoping the farm to be floating in the air, like in Big Hero 6.

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

      Windmills floating in air have been investigated also. But I assume water is safer and cheaper.

  3. 30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Installed cost of over $8500 per kW. A gas fired combined cycle plant runs from $500 to $1000 per kW.

    This project will only make money because stupid people will pay extra for the joy of it.

    Absolutely stupid.

    1. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Installed cost of over $8500 per kW. A gas fired combined cycle plant runs from $500 to $1000 per kW.

      This project will only make money because stupid people will pay extra for the joy of it.

      Absolutely stupid.

      If it's their money, who cares? People buy Beemers, Rolls-Royces, and Teslas. Why would they be stupid, they are simply trying to enjoy life before they die. You don't get a second go-around, so enjoy life while you can, with a touch of the Appollonian to keep the pocket book a little healthy.

    2. Re:30 MW for $256M by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Installed cost of over $8500 per kW.

      It is expensive because it is the first of its kind. We will learn from it, and version 2.0 will be better.

      A gas fired combined cycle plant runs from $500 to $1000 per kW.

      That is the installation cost. You still have to buy gas. Of course the gas will be cheaper because that is mature technology, and many of the costs are externalized.

      Absolutely stupid.

      If you only look at the short term gain, yes. If you consider the long term, including the value of knowledge, then no.

    3. Re:30 MW for $256M by jblues · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first-of-a-kind nature means supply chain complexity, too. “We have 15 main contractors. For the future we cannot have 15, we can have between 5 and 10,” said Leif Delp, project manager for Hywind. Expect costs to come down.

      Bear in mind that it is an Oil & Gas company that decided to pursue this project.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    4. Re: 30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first chip to roll of an Intel stepper costs a lot too. Doesn't mean Intel should have stuck with the 4004.

    5. Re:30 MW for $256M by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love the idea of somebody telling an oil company that they don't know how to make money.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:30 MW for $256M by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      It is surely built with OPM - Other People's Money.

    7. Re:30 MW for $256M by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Companies whore after any big source of paid cash. Oil companies too. Look at Halliburton, not even an oil company - good for at least two wars (LBJ/Vietnam and Iraq),

    8. Re:30 MW for $256M by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You still have to buy replacement blades and generators...

      Nope. Both the blades and turbines are designed to last the full 25 year operational life of the windfarm.

    9. Re:30 MW for $256M by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      ...You still have to buy gas. You still have to buy replacement blades and generators...

      As you wouldn't for gas turbines?

      Face it, with wind power the cost of fuel is 0 and that makes up for a significant part of the running costs. Eventually, like with every development known to us, all other running costs will be optimized.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    10. Re:30 MW for $256M by blindseer · · Score: 0, Troll

      A generous subsidy deal from the Scottish government made the project viable.

      It's not "their" money that's being spent, it's other people's money. I don't have a problem if people want to invest their own money in an energy project. I have a problem when it's my money spent on an energy project.

      I don't live in Scotland and I don't pay Scottish taxes so this does not affect me directly. As long as this stupid idea stays there I'll still be disappointed in the Scottish taxpayers getting sucked into this but it's no real cost to me. When/if this comes to the USA then I see it as a problem.

      Honest businessmen take their ideas to investors to fund a project. They will make a case and if they can convince the people with the money that the risk is worth the potential reward then things happen. Dishonest businessmen take their ideas to governments. Senators don't care about making good investments, they are looking to buy campaign donations with taxpayers' money. These kind of investments are money laundering schemes.

      These wind subsidies just lead to corruption, expensive energy, higher taxes, and often times little real CO2 reductions to show for it. When the wind blows the utilities are forced by law to pay the wind farms for that energy whether they need it or not. Also while the wind blows the coal plants are still burning coal even if they are not producing any electricity. The boilers need to be kept hot or they'll take hours to days come back on line after the wind stops. If the boilers are allowed to cool then a lot of coal needs to be burned to get them back to temperature, while they produce no electricity. Alternatively when the wind stops blowing something has to make up for the lost power, this is usually gas turbines. Gas turbines burn twice as much fuel compared to combined cycle plants for the same energy produced.

      Unless this wind is coupled with some sort of energy storage, "smart grid", and/or other means to match the load to this shifting supply there is going to be a lot of CO2 burned, wind blowing or not.

      Every time I see wind power deployed there will be someone that does an honest story on the CO2 released and it's, nothing changed, an increase, or the wind simply did not blow enough to make a difference but the windmill owners still demand payment.

      I say fuck them. If they can't figure out how to make a profit on this then they can go bankrupt. Part of the bankruptcy deal is cleaning up the mess they made in the ocean. Make the site better than it was before. Oh, and pay back what they took for the "jump start" money, because that money is for winners. There's just one lump of money and it could grow a little every year. The first one to consistently turn a profit keeps the money. After that we've demonstrated that wind is profitable and no further government investment is needed.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:30 MW for $256M by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What of the external costs of wind power? We know that there are some.

      Indeed. When wind turbines spin, they suck angular momentum out of the earth, causing it to slow, and eventually fall into the sun. Besides that, is there some other external costs we should know about?

    12. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem causing the fog in London was only partly the use of coal.
      The bigger issue at that time was that the coal contained significant amounts
      of sulphur and other contaminants. They were the real culprit. Introducing new
      regulations to ban high sulphur coal and replace it with low sulphur anthracite
      made a huge difference. The fogs pretty much disappeared within a couple of
      years. So the "cost" was more related to a lack of regulation. The free market
      just wasn't working because every one was externalizing their problem (i.e. the
      high sulphur problem). Why would you pay the higher cost of anthracite if everyone
      else is saving money by burning the bad stuff.

      The current problem is that the whole world is now burning fossil fuels at a frightening
      rate which is now having measureable global effects that weren't there before. You
      just cant expect to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and have nothing
      change. The amounts are just too large. It's not only the warming effect, it's the
      acidification of the shallows in the oceans too. The consequences could be rather nasty.

    13. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There I thought this was a story about 'ow England chucked Corbyn into the Channel.

    14. Re:30 MW for $256M by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Well, that's what they say, but real life says they are wearing a lot faster. And in fact, wind turbine blade repair and replacement from normal wear-and-tear is a new and upcoming industry.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    15. Re:30 MW for $256M by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Local climate is affected in terms of temperature and rainfall. So as we try to combat climate change with wind farms, we end up changing the climate...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:30 MW for $256M by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Local climate is affected in terms of temperature and rainfall.

      Wow. Slightly less rain falling on the North Sea will have devastating consequences. I can't imagine how humanity will survive.

    17. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "When/if this comes to the USA then I see it as a problem." governments still subsidise decades old energy systems that should be able to stand on their own 2 feet decades ago so why is it different when the energy is renewable?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    18. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      did they compare it to the ongoing maintenance done on petrol refineries/gas/coal/nucleur power stations? i'd be surprised if there wasn't a maintenance program for wind turbines.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    19. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Consensus that death by gas and coal pollution was worth it? No, they didn't care (and probably didn't know about the link), industry and wealth was the driving force for using coal in those times, so what if poor people got ill or died, there were many more where they came from.
      i think i'd prefer renewables as they do not poison, cause oil slicks as a result of tanker accidents, pollute etc etc.
      Please add to the list of external costs to help the list grow.
      1. construction
      2. ongoing maintenance

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      world and not just local climate is affected by fossil fuel pollution and thats a lot worse problem, in fact there is a whole branch of science dedicated to trying to stop the pollution hence the move to clean renewable power generation.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    21. Re:30 MW for $256M by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Nuclear and fossil fuel plants are fire & forget - you just get them going and leave. Have you every seen anyone working in a power plant once it's been completed? Of course not...

    22. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is surely built with OPM - Other People's Money.

      I was referring to the cost of the energy-where I live, you can choose to have a higher electric bill, by paying extra for wind power. This relates to the OP's second sentence: "This project will only make money because stupid people will pay extra for the joy of it."

      FTR, I would rather spend my money on something else, but others are free to make their own choices.

    23. Re:30 MW for $256M by gsslay · · Score: 0

      Dishonest businessmen take their ideas to governments. Senators don't care about making good investments, they are looking to buy campaign donations with taxpayers' money.

      Well, if we're playing this game;
      "Investors don't care about making clean energy, or cutting CO2 emissions they are looking to make a profit within the next 10 years."

      A significant amount of investment is needed in order for new technologies to develop and replace existing/obsolete technologies. There is no reason why this investment has to come from the private sector alone, particularly when the technology is something that will benefit everyone, and not just the pockets of the investors.

      So feel free to continue with your anti public sector mindset. Once this technology is mature Scotland, that is everyone in the country, will be reaping the benefits, while some countries will still be burning coal like it was 1900.... because money.

      Unless this wind is coupled with some sort of energy storage

      Thanks for this insight. No-one in the industry had thought of this and obviously it means they are wasting their time and money.

    24. Re:30 MW for $256M by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      So you believe they'll NEVER have to replace a blade or generator?

      I'd take money on that. Planned or not planned, things happens, blades have fractures that eventually give way, generators will seize up, etc.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    25. Re:30 MW for $256M by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the issue. You were claiming the blades are good for 25 years - no need to replace or maintain them. The facts are otherwise.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    26. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't let you in an operating nuke plant unless you're there on an official tour or work there.

      But what else do you think the maintenance breaks done on the plants are if not to, well, maintain and work on keeping operating safely nuclear plants? They just want a long holiday????

      (PS I've never seen anyone working on a solar or wind farm once it's completed either. And never on a rooftop mounted one on homes, and those are all around me)

    27. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I expect some will make that mark and longer ( https://cleantechnica.com/2015... ) and some will be lower - nothing is perfect and totally predictable when dealing with electro-mechanical devices. Its like saying on the last day of its 25 year predicted lifespan, it will not turn again on the 1st day of its 26th year.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    28. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 0

      who is going to refuel, maintain and monitor them etc ? is it done by magic or perhaps the mythical magical being in the sky points its finger at them and its all done.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most companies involved in renewable energy are either Oil & Gas companies or large utilities (also in some cases owned by Oil & Gas groups).
      I've been involved (in Offshore Wind Farms) for about 14 years now and have seen massive changes brought in by these companies, in the beginning it was laughed at and offshore wind was seen as a big joke, since then energy wholesale prices have risen steadily and economies of scale have brought OSW (Offshore Wind) pretty much in line with other technologies.. Now they are about the hit bigger problem as they move further offshore to build bigger farms they are starting to look towards OSP's (Offshore Platforms) like in Oil & Gas to service and construct them.

      Personally I can only see the business only growing for the next 10-15 years, and we have also only just started to see the first farms being removed, which will be another market (albeit tiny).

      I just wish the smaller scale ones for onshore were cheaper in the UK.. And MCS is a total joke for those who would like to get solar panels and or small scale turbines (5-10kW) the companies can pretty much charge what they want, making it not worth the cost of getting them, unless you're a huge company of course.. But that's another story..

    30. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these facts? All I see are posts saying that it's not the case.

    31. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. All wind investment is automatically good and smart. No matter how high the cost or low the practicality for scaling. Its wind and wind is always good and smart. Only idiots think otherwise.

    32. Re:30 MW for $256M by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      So you believe they'll NEVER have to replace a blade or generator? I'd take money on that. Planned or not planned, things happens, blades have fractures that eventually give way, generators will seize up, etc. Ferret

      A certain percentage of blades will fail earlier, the rest replaced when their design life is up. While the generators claim a 25 year "design life", maintenance over those years will likely replace the windings and most of the parts, some more than once.

      I suppose the movement of these 'bobbing' structures might increase the difficulty of blade replacement.

    33. Re:30 MW for $256M by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yup, none of those" poor people" benefited from low cost reliably electric power. It was only the rich folks that wanted it. GMAFB.

      Coal was (and is) dominant because of practicality. The driving force behind coal use was DEMAND for electricity.

    34. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is surely built with OPM - Other People's Money.

      Our oil, our money, our company. What were you saying again?

    35. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that is a "world's first" project is going to have costs way higher than will be possible once the technology is well-established, so your comparison is bogus.

    36. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the "cost" was more related to a lack of regulation.

      Wrong. The existence of regulation causes costs. The absence of regulation (free market) by definition eliminate or minimize them.
      --
      roman_mir

    37. Re: 30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, are free to make a choice or are you given just one option? And free to exercise that option. That doesn't imply a true choice. Like all the non voters in an election not voting. And then complaining about the outcome. Do they have a right to complain? But, their lack of involvement speaks more then their choice to not participate. Windmills are a good supplement source of power. Same with solar. But as a base, not good. There are better designs of windmills, and better placement areas. But those are overlooked. That's the fault of those in charge of the programs.

    38. Re: 30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hugo? Hugo Chavez? I thought you had passed away,

    39. Re:30 MW for $256M by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I now can't tell if that's a sarcastic response to my sarcastic comment. I now feel like I'm googling recursion!

    40. Re:30 MW for $256M by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      "The existence of regulation causes costs. The absence of regulation (free market) by definition eliminate or minimize them"

      Cost: Companies are leaking lead into the water supply.

      Regulation: If you leak lead in the water supply you get a fine that is large enough to make you stop.

      So the freer market was causing the cost and the regulation got rid of it.

    41. Re:30 MW for $256M by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Once again, since you missed it previously:
      Sarcasm is invisible on the internet (and especially on /.) because it is camouflaged by the ubiquitous background of actual cluelessness.

      Pretend cluelessness is indistinguishable from real cluelessness.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    42. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the fossil fuel industry funds anti-climate trolling with shareholder money...

      Obviously, misspending other people's money is ok if you believe in the cause=... huh?

    43. Re:30 MW for $256M by smallfries · · Score: 1

      As long as we build half facing the other way we should be safe.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    44. Re:30 MW for $256M by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      That's right. All wind investment is automatically good and smart. No matter how high the cost or low the practicality for scaling. Its wind and wind is always good and smart. Only idiots think otherwise.

      False dichotomy + strawman + no true Scotsman..

    45. Re:30 MW for $256M by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Which is ironic since it's being installed in Scottish waters.

    46. Re:30 MW for $256M by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Stupid people is right... like you. So you're saying that a first floating windfarm is going to cost about 10 times what gas-fired would.

      There's just one thing wrong with your costing: how much will the gas-fired plant pay for fuel per year? Over the next five years?

      The windfarm pays NOTHING.

    47. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot they do not suck angular momentum from the earth. Ever notice how the wind seems to come from different directions and not constantly east-west. Also we can't "fall into the sun" from this as it doesn't even effect our ORBITAL angular momentum at all.

    48. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely full of crap. Nuclear and fossil plants need maintenance all the time. Furthermore, nuclear plants also have refueling outages.

    49. Re:30 MW for $256M by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It's not different. Energy of any kind should not be subsidized.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    50. Re:30 MW for $256M by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You have just demonstrated the ignorance I spoke about. There is pollution in the production of wind and solar power. These waste products are toxic and disposing of it properly is not trivial. Compared to nuclear power wind and solar are terrible for the environment. Even compared to natural gas and low sulfur coal wind and solar really aren't that great.

      Everyone wants to talk about the external costs of coal and pretend that there are no external costs to wind and solar. Renewable energy does poison the environment and claiming otherwise is ignorance, willful or not.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    51. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas coal plants get built with OPH - Other People's Health

    52. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Explain how a wind turbine or a solar panel generating electrical energy is creating pollution. You can make that claim during the production of turbines/solar panels because anything that currently uses fossil fuelled power to manufacture will create some pollution until such time all/most power is generated with renewables. Pretty much 95% of a solar panel and batteries can be recycled so not much has to be disposed of. Nuclear is fine until your have an accident.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    53. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      hardly any poor people benefited in the early days as they couldn't afford it.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    54. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Once a new tech is up and running then yes. but not when they are trying to get something as large as a power generation market off the ground to create thousands of jobs, utopia does not exist i'm afraid

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    55. Re:30 MW for $256M by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Are you saying there is no power generation market in the US?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    56. Re:30 MW for $256M by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Explain how a wind turbine or a solar panel generating electrical energy is creating pollution.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      http://cyprus-mail.com/2017/06...

      Nuclear is fine until your have an accident.

      Solar power is fine until someone falls off a roof. Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have today.

      https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

      Solar power is expensive, unreliable, toxic, and just generally a bad idea. Nuclear power is ten times safer, ten times cleaner, ten times more reliable, and just generally a better idea ten times over.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    57. Re:30 MW for $256M by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People understood the external "costs" of coal and gas for a long time now. There's a wide and deep consensus that the costs are worth it.

      You may well be right there, but it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. If people accept external costs, that doesn't mean the costs don't exist, but that people are willing to pay them. I've accepted a lot of costs under the belief that the costs were worth it, but that doesn't mean I would prefer to have spent less money. If a certain amount of energy costs me $1 on the bill and carries external costs of $1 to me, I may well think the energy is worth $2, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to pay $1.90 on the bill with external costs of $0.02.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:30 MW for $256M by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking about externalities. Regulations are appropriate to limit external costs (i.e., costs not borne by the people making the decision to inflict them).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is expensive because it is the first of its kind. We will learn from it, and version 2.0 will be better.

      That's what they said about nuclear power stations. Still waiting for that "electricity too cheap to meter".

    60. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      of course not. its a new 21st century clean power generation infrastructure replacing the old subsidised fossil fuel method so it "new" and "new" infrastructure, particularly on this scale, is always expensive at first. If its was a subsidy for cupcakes then I'd agree with the original posters comment.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    61. Re:30 MW for $256M by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Can't read the nationalreview link, just get error 502, the cyprus is just a rant and does not list any pollution created during power generation by turbine or solar panels. Please identify the pollution created during power generation by turbines and solar, maybe you misunderstand what i actually mean.
      someone falling off a roof is a human accident, again nothing to do with power being generated by the panel. Why not include all the human error accidents by fossil fuel workers in comparison e.g. oil tanker crashes/sinkings, gas/oil/petrol explosions/fires.
      "Solar power is expensive, unreliable, toxic, and just generally a bad idea. " - new tech so a bit more expensive at the moment, very reliable, want to explain toxicity of fossil fuels in comparison, panels/batteries are 95% recycleable so a damn good idea whereas fossil fuel is single use in burning and produces pollution in every step of its life.
      "Nuclear power is ten times safer, ten times cleaner, ten times more reliable, and just generally a better idea ten times over." its safe until you have an accident, its a single point of failure, the fuel is not safe to handle, its a fine target for a missile (or a terrorist) if you end up in a war, nuclear fuel, when expended, needs to be buried somewhere safe and hope it doesn't leak. Its not as good as you think and it costs an absolute fortune to build and just wait until your government (i.e. out of your pocket) is charged for the decommission of an old reactor.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    62. Re:30 MW for $256M by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Something similar might be said for solar power. The point?

    63. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nuclear power is also ten times more expensive and does not scale well.

    64. Re:30 MW for $256M by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Please identify the pollution created during power generation by turbines and solar, maybe you misunderstand what i actually mean.

      Where is the pollution created by nuclear power during power generation? There is none. With solar, wind, and nuclear all the waste and pollution is in the construction and decommissioning. If we are going to compare them then we need to be consistent and realistic. Wind and solar produce more waste than nuclear and waste that is just as toxic to the environment. With the less waste from nuclear we have a cleaner environment in the end.

      someone falling off a roof is a human accident, again nothing to do with power being generated by the panel.

      Bullshit. That person would not be on the roof if not for the solar panels. Every accident has a human error component and if that death occurs in the act of maintaining that energy source then it certainly is related, even if they slip and fall off a ladder. If we play that game then nuclear power may even look better since a big concrete and steel building where you'll find the nuclear reactor protects people from "act of god" type accidents like getting blown off a roof, hit by lightning, or attacked by rabid dogs.

      panels/batteries are 95% recycleable

      So is everything with nuclear power. The difference is in the total mass that needs to be recycled to get the same energy and power. To supply the world with equal amounts of energy there would need to be 250,000 roofs covered with solar panels PER DAY to keep up with replacement of old panels. To do the same with nuclear power would mean one nuclear power plant per week. Even that may be skewed to the benefit of solar since it assumes an operational life of 50 years. Nuclear power tends to last longer and solar tends to last less.

      its safe until you have an accident

      Already been over that. We can have a Chernobyl or Fukushima once every 30 years or so and still not compare to the deaths from industrial accidents from solar power. Chernobyl and Fukushima were industrial accidents, just on a larger scale. Nuclear power is 10 times safer than solar, claiming otherwise is denying the facts before you.

      iits a single point of failure, the fuel is not safe to handle, its a fine target for a missile (or a terrorist) if you end up in a war, nuclear fuel, when expended, needs to be buried somewhere safe and hope it doesn't leak. Its not as good as you think and it costs an absolute fortune to build and just wait until your government (i.e. out of your pocket) is charged for the decommission of an old reactor.

      That does not compute. Any energy source is a target. You think solar power is immune? It's a bunch of glass out in a field, how hard would that be for a terrorist to destroy? Nuclear reactors are in a big concrete dome, behind a big fence, protected by people with machine guns. We do the same for other big energy producers, like hydro dams. You can put a fence around your solar panels, you can protect them with armed men. What you cannot do is put them in a shelter.

      When it comes to solar waste you have the same problem as nuclear, you dump it in a hole and hope it doesn't leak. If at some point someone figures out to recycle it then don't you think by then someone would also figure out how to recycle nuclear waste too? We're a lot closer to recycling nuclear waste than solar waste, and not near as much mass of waste to deal with in the first place. When it comes to the costs of cleanup the NRC has required all nuclear reactor operators to contribute to a fund for the cleanup upon decommissioning. I don't see a similar fund for solar power. So all you got is bullshit.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    65. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When wind turbines spin, they suck angular momentum out of the earth, causing it to slow"

      Wrong.

      Energy to drive weather systems on earth comes mostly from the solar flux, with a small contribution from the Earth's rotation. I'll agree that any process that removes energy from the Earth's weather systems has some small potential to rob angular momentum from the Earth, but it's still not perfectly clear to me how this could happen with momentum exchange of some kind. Absolutely regardless, it's a good thing the angular momentum of the Earth is "fucking huge".

      Secondary to all of this, there is no process that will remove any orbital energy from the Earth whatsoever, so no, the Earth will not be getting any closer to the Sun, sorry.

    66. Re:30 MW for $256M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....could happen *without* momentum exchange of....

  4. Peak or average? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Is that $8500 per peak watt or after taking into account the "capacity factor" that the wind blows, on average, a certain percent of the time?

    1. Re:Peak or average? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Move to areas with better wind if the wind gets to fast, stops or gets too slow?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Peak or average? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Move to areas with better wind if the wind gets to fast, stops or gets too slow?

      They will be anchored to the seafloor, and once in place they won't move. But it doesn't matter: in the North Sea, the wind never stops, nor does it often even slow down. The whole point of putting the turbines out at sea is for the strong and steady wind.

    3. Re:Peak or average? by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      Except for the cost of putting turbines out at sea...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Peak or average? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except for the cost of putting turbines out at sea...

      Not so bad when you still have the vestiges of an entire industry devoted to building offshore platforms nearby.

    5. Re:Peak or average? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Except for the cost of putting turbines out at sea...

      Duh. Of course the cost is higher at sea. But the winds are stronger, and power goes up as the cube of the windspeed, so the same size rig can generate far more power. Sea winds are also steadier, which means less expense on peakers.

  5. FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did not fit the word "cyber" into the summary.

    1. Re:FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cyber-penis is spraying cyber-semen on the walls of your cyber-rectum.

  6. It floats on water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better not get creimer to do the IT. The amount of wind from his boasting will blow it off course!

    /betcha thought I'd do a weight joke huh??

    1. Re:It floats on water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloviating would have been a better choice of words.

  7. Fuck Statoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stay out of the Bight

  8. Thin on details... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

    As usual, TFA is short on some important details. Wind turbines, great. Floating, anchored in (relatively) deep coastal waters, great. How does the power get back to shore? The northern coast of Scotland isn't really a very highly populated area, how does this project tie into the existing power grid?

    T. Boone Pickens had an idea a few yeard ago - build wind farms across the panhandle of Texas, then run the power back along railroad right-of-ways. Trains might run through the middle of nowhere, but their destinations are always in towns.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:Thin on details... by hoofie · · Score: 2

      As usual, TFA is short on some important details. Wind turbines, great. Floating, anchored in (relatively) deep coastal waters, great. How does the power get back to shore? The northern coast of Scotland isn't really a very highly populated area, how does this project tie into the existing power grid?

      T. Boone Pickens had an idea a few yeard ago - build wind farms across the panhandle of Texas, then run the power back along railroad right-of-ways. Trains might run through the middle of nowhere, but their destinations are always in towns.

      It's more populated than you think - most of the towns in that neck of the woods are coastal. Also Peterhead has a 3 gas turbine power station plus Aberdeen is just down the road with a population of 200,000. Finally Scotland is criss-crossed by the National Grid distribution system due to amount of Nuclear Stations that were [and some still are] dotted around : a network which is of course tied into the UK as a whole.

    2. Re:Thin on details... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      in the same way they get oil from the the north sea platforms - build a pipeline of some sort, lay a cable (how do you think they started to get telegraph messages between the UK and USA?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Thin on details... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      One detail is that there are only three anchor chains. If that is true, these are a disaster waiting to happen. If three are needed (which they are, to guarantee the position), then you should fit at least five, so that, in the event of failure (remember Murphy?) there is still a spare one.

      Two chains just won't work in the event of an accident. Just imagine monstrosity like this swinging about on one chain until the second one gets pulled tight! Even a boat in harbour is normally moored with four.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Thin on details... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      A ship will have four anchors so that you don't have 150m ships swinging around a single point. I have however seen small ships anchored in the Solent at the bow only, although that's a sheltered area. These anchors will also be - for all intensive purposes* - permanent. The anchors themselves are Suction Caissons (source), not stockless anchors.

      * Obvious troll is obvious :-)

    5. Re:Thin on details... by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      I know little about anchoring turbines, but I've never moored a boat with four anchors in my life - and removable boat anchors are much less reliable than permanent mooring systems.

      I'm all in favour of redundancy, but it's not the only solution to making things safe. I've flown in many single-engine aircraft, and I've driven over plenty of bridges which will fall down if any one of their pillars collapses.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    6. Re:Thin on details... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      It's more populated than you think - most of the towns in that neck of the woods are coastal. Also Peterhead has a 3 gas turbine power station plus Aberdeen is just down the road with a population of 200,000. Finally Scotland is criss-crossed by the National Grid distribution system due to amount of Nuclear Stations that were [and some still are] dotted around : a network which is of course tied into the UK as a whole.

      Looking at the map, the towns you mention are on the northeast "finger" that sticks out. TFA doesn't say exactly where the windmills will be anchored. If they're near these fine cities, then well and good. If they're up north, say somewhere between Durness and Dunnet, then it might be a different matter. Still, wish them well, where ever they put down.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    7. Re:Thin on details... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      It takes three points to stop rotation of the platform while allowing movement (you could stop rotation with two but the anchor lines would need to be more taught). That is why three. The likelihood of an anchor break and the consequences are hard to know from information available. Two lines would likely stop any significant movement from its original position.

    8. Re:Thin on details... by chill · · Score: 1

      There was a link in the article to a prior one that contains a map of the Hywinds location.

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/worlds-largest-floating-windfarm-to-be-built-off-scottish-coast

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  9. Re:sunk costs by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Imagine the German navy's delight if this were 1939...

    In 1939 the Royal Navy couldn't retaliate with Trident ballistic missiles, and nuclear Tomahawks. Seriously, which navy do you think is going to attack these turbines? Any nation state would suffer overwhelming retaliation. Any terrorist organization already has many far softer targets.

  10. Boat Way-Stops by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

    I imagine some day, electric boats might swap batteries at floating stations that recharge the depleted batteries via wind turbine or tidal power.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Boat Way-Stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some day maybe, but not now. So getting the power back to shore is kind of important. A boat with fully charged batteries would have trouble making back to sure let alone anywhere useful. It takes a lot more power to run a boat any distance than a car. Also the distances are generally much larger.

    2. Re:Boat Way-Stops by speedplane · · Score: 1

      I imagine some day, electric boats might swap batteries at floating stations that recharge the depleted batteries via wind turbine or tidal power.

      Why would we use boats when we could use a gravity train instead.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:Boat Way-Stops by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      sail boats could bring the charged batteries back to shore! problem solved.

    4. Re:Boat Way-Stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, perhaps we could invent a technique that skips the batteries, and directly use the windpower to propel ships. Perhaps not in the next decade, but I'm certain that this technology is achievable in this century.

  11. bases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the north sea alone there are dozens of old clapped out oil rigs that are at end of life,one of the first biggies was lifted off its base just a few weeks ago,the plan for many seems to be that the bases and anchor systems etc are going to left as navigation hazard for decades,why not make some use of them and stick wind gennies on them,the only extra cost is power cables,oil firms can charge rent,and 10% of profits anyone makes can go towards removal of bases eventually,they are massive structures, not going to wear out or collapse in the near future,most of them are in good condition still,either removal or just blowing them over is pricey but do-able.
    Why not get some more use out of them until in such bad condition that something has to be done ?

  12. It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The development is entirely reasonable, and follows the normal pattern of risk reduction in an emerging technology.

    Oil drilling started off on land, then it moved to shallow waters, then it moved to deep waters. The technology developed on the easiest sites then moved to the harder sites when there were not enough easy sites.

    Some of the first wind farms in the UK were on Scottish islands. Not only did they have plenty of wind, the inhabitants of the islands used diesel generators, which were over four times the cost of mainland electricity; so the site was likely to be profitable even if it used first-generation parts. It reduced the risk of a highly visible venture site being unprofitable, and blocking the chance of making others.

    Putting windmills in shallow water is quite like building them on land. You sink piles into shallow water or boggy land. The existing technologies can be used with longer piles, but in the end another solution is going to be cheaper. The cheaper solution is going to be anchored platforms. The people with the most experience of these are oil companies.

    Instead of asking, "why an oil company?", ask "why not all oil companies with offshore drilling?". The US division - fossil fuels are freedom, wind and renewables are tree-hugging socialism - does not hold in Europe.

    1. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by jez9999 · · Score: 0

      "Plenty of wind" is subjective. Unless it has a constant wind it will fluctuate, making it useless for providing a reliable baseload.

    2. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All power plants fluctuate. Nuke stations need refuelling and maintenance at least twice a year dropping or stopping output. Coal power stations too. Both thermal plants need enough cold water without things like jellyfish clogging the inlets and without that they stop. This variability therefore makes coal and nuclear power useless for baseload....

    3. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

      All power plants fluctuate. Nuke stations need refuelling and maintenance at least twice a year dropping or stopping output.

      Nuclear refueling cycles are almost always 12 or 18 months. Not 6, you have an inaccurate source of info that you should no longer trust or repeat. The outages are planned for low demand times, typically Spring and Fall, and therefore do not present the same problems that widely varying output on an hourly basis that we can see from wind.

    4. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main difference is that planned production dips are intentionally uncorrelated - you don't take all nuclear plants offline on the same day. However, windmill power is unplanned (although reasonably predictable), and additionally it's quite correlated. Europe is small enough that you can have low wind power from Scotland to Italy.

      The annoying side effect is that electricity prices drop significantly when there's a lot of wind. In other words, wind mills ares seldom lucrative. Either they don't produce energy, or the energy they produce sells at a loss.

    5. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Oil drilling started off on land, then it moved to shallow waters, then it moved to deep waters. The technology developed on the easiest sites then moved to the harder sites when there were not enough easy sites.

      That's actually what has me wondering why this costs so damn much. Isn't the "technology" exactly the same as a floating oil rig, except instead of doing the considerably harder task of sending a pipe down to a fixed spot on the sea floor, they're just sticking a wind turbine on top of it? The R&D for this has already been done and paid for by the oil industry. Why is it costing so much to mount a wind turbine onto decades-old technology? Even the problem of sending power from the turbine to shore via a cable is analogous to the pipe for pumping oil back to shore.

      Some of the first wind farms in the UK were on Scottish islands. Not only did they have plenty of wind

      Just to address the other comment on your post, the seas off Scotland are one of if not the best place on earth for wind power. Globally, onshore wind power has a capacity factor (ratio of actual power produced to peak production capacity) of about 0.20 to 0.25. Offshore wind is usually around 0.30-0.35. Offshore wind in Scotland is way up around 0.60-0.75. The winds are both strong and consistent there.

    6. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      That's actually what has me wondering why this costs so damn much. Isn't the "technology" exactly the same as a floating oil rig, except instead of doing the considerably harder task of sending a pipe down to a fixed spot on the sea floor, they're just sticking a wind turbine on top of it?

      I guess the next question would be, how much does it cost to set up an oil rig? It may be that a floating rig is expensive to set up regardless of what you do with it.

      OTOH, if you're right, and there's no inherent reason for the additional expense, then I would expect costs to come down quickly once it has been established what works and what doesn't work in terms of off-shore wind. Everything costs more the first time, since you are still experimenting and often making sub-optimal or overly-conservative choices, and not operating at scale.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It is reasonable if you don't ask what is paying for it.

        This is government money paying for this project not the oil companies money.

        If private investors had to pay for any of this it would never ever happen it makes no financial sense.

  13. Re:sunk costs by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You are a dumbass if you think that nuclear weapons would be used as a retaliation strike for sinking a wind turbine platform. Not only weapons of mass destruction are ultima ratio, but given the proximity to the British isles they will receive a substantial amount of their own fallout and it will also poison their fish stocks.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  14. Cool Idea by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    Haven't really read it much yet (it's 0400 in the morning and I'm getting ready for work) but as long as the numbers work out let'em go for it. Since "low carbon" is a thing with some they should also factor in the cost of carbon for the steel or aluminum, the oil lubing the bearings, etc. but it could very well be a positive. Certainly that area is DANGED windy!

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  15. Of the coast of scotland In Norway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the same way the USA is of the coast of the UK.

  16. Does it spoil the view by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Does it spoil the view from The Donster's golf course? Wouldn't that be a pity!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farming the wind. Really? Who buys wind? Is this a Monsanto thing or some other BigAg making a new market?

    I got wind right here. It's some butthole speaking crap behind my back.

    RRK

  18. Faulty Map by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    The map has a couple of problems.

    The Hywind project is nowhere near "North east Scotland". It looks to be near Aberdeen. That's east certainly but it is pretty close to the middle north-south of the mainland. The other Dot, next to that claims to be a place called Kingcardine. That is a hundred miles away. This may not seem much to people in the USA but it does here.

    If the map is faulty, how reliable is the article?

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  19. Re:sunk costs by qbast · · Score: 1

    Imagine the German navy's delight if this were 1939...

    In 1939 the Royal Navy couldn't retaliate with Trident ballistic missiles, and nuclear Tomahawks..

    And nobody really knows if it could do it today. Trident missiles are designed, manufactured and serviced in USA. Would they even launch without additional authorization code in case UK and US interests diverged?

  20. seen this scene before somewhere... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    When I first came here, this was all ocean. Everyone said I was daft to build a wind farm on a ocean, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the ocean. So I built a second one. That sank into the ocean. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the ocean. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest wind farm in all of Scotland.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  21. Re: sunk costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you saying you think he was suggesting that if someone destroyed the platform, Britain would retaliate by nuking the remains of the platform, and not the people who destroyed it?

  22. What about potential environemntal impact? by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    If we start occupying large open spaces including the ocean with these windmills, I wonder what the environmental impact would be with massive blocking/displacement of the wind around the world.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  23. Law of Salvage? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Couldn't help but wonder: if one of them puppies "accidentally" broke free of its moorings and started drifting away .. and I just happened to be there with a tugboat (or a bloody rowboat, for that matter!) and got a line on it ...

    Would it be mine?

  24. Call Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfffthpptt!

    Call me when they have hovering, free-flying, untethered windmills!