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.

Comments

30 MW for $256M

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[jblues]

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.

Re: 30 MW for $256M

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[SirSlud]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[harvey the nerd]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[harvey the nerd]

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),

Re:30 MW for $256M

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[SpaghettiPattern]

...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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:30 MW for $256M

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

"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?

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[oobayly]

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...

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Ferretman]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re: 30 MW for $256M

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[oobayly]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[mrclevesque]

"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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[smallfries]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[luis_a_espinal]

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..

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Alioth]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[whitroth]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[blindseer]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[blindseer]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Shotgun]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[blindseer]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[david_thornley]

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).

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Barsteward]

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.

Re:30 MW for $256M

[Mr D from 63]

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

Re:30 MW for $256M

[blindseer]

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.

Peak or average?

[Latent Heat]

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?

Re:Peak or average?

[AHuxley]

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

Re:Peak or average?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Peak or average?

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Peak or average?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Thin on details...

[Sooner Boomer]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[hoofie]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[Barsteward]

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?

Re:Thin on details...

[Anne Thwacks]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[oobayly]

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 :-)

Re:Thin on details...

[Jon Peterson]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[Sooner Boomer]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:Thin on details...

[chill]

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

Re:sunk costs

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Boat Way-Stops

[mentil]

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

Re:Boat Way-Stops

[speedplane]

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.

Re:Boat Way-Stops

[Mr D from 63]

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

It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[Richard Kirk]

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.

Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[Solandri]

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.

Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[Jeremi]

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.

Re:It's reasonable, despite the trolling...

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Re:sunk costs

[dunkelfalke]

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.

Cool Idea

[Ferretman]

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

Does it spoil the view

[Hognoxious]

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

Faulty Map

[Gonoff]

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?

Re:sunk costs

[qbast]

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?

seen this scene before somewhere...

[Thud457]

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.

Re: sunk costs

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

What about potential environemntal impact?

[evolutionary]

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.

Re:Whoopdee doo

[micahraleigh]

Call me when this can pay for itself.

Law of Salvage?

[Toad-san]

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?