Slashdot Mirror
World's First Floating Wind Farm Emerges Off Coast of Scotland (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo writes: The world's first full-scale floating wind farm has started to take shape off the north-east coast of Scotland. The revolutionary technology will allow wind power to be harvested in waters too deep for the current conventional bottom-standing turbines. The manufacturer hopes to cash in on a boom in the technology, especially in Japan and the west coast of the U.S., where waters are deep. The tower, including the blades, stretches to 175m and weighs 11,500 tons. The price of energy from bottom-standing offshore wind farms has plummeted 32% since 2012, and is now four years ahead of the government's expected target. Another big price drop is expected, taking offshore wind to a much lower price than new nuclear power.
then sinks
Godless heathens, everyone knows Jesus only wants coal fired power plants.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The next one will catch fire, fall over and sink.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If this is true, these things a gigantic...
There are indeed gigantic. There are several big advantages to hugeness:
1. The winds are steadier and stronger the higher you go. Since power production goes up as the cube of the wind speed, this makes a big difference.
2. There is a lot less salt up high. It drops off nearly exponentially.
3. Much of the maintenance scales less than linearly with turbine size, so it is more cost effective with big turbines.
Some environmentalists will oppose this because of presumed bird mortality,
Not if they're rational.
and many slash dotters who are definitely not environmentalists will oppose this because it is an energy source they hate.
Hating an energy source isn't rational.
Reality Check. Environmentalist & non-environmentalist don't hate wind turbines in significant numbers.The anti-turbine mob are all nimbys worried about spoiling their views, and old-energy shills and their useful idiots.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
yeah, the scale of these things is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Is there a solution to repel birds?
The solution is better education, especially in math, science, and critical thinking. Once we have done that, people will no longer be stupid enough to believe that the "bird problem" is a real issue.
The best estimate for bird deaths from wind turbines is between 140,000 to 328,000 in North America
... and 3.7B birds are killed annually by domestic and feral cats in America. That is at least 10,000 times more.
It is not floating as it is tied to the bottom.
So do ships stop floating when they drop anchor?
... and 3.7B birds are killed annually by domestic and feral cats in America. That is at least 10,000 times more.
Yeah, but the amount of eagles, albatrosses and lapwings and auks that Felix lays low is rather low. It's not about numbers, but impact on individual species and populations.
The blades can be turned side on, known as feathering, to prevent overspeed.
Used in aviation for the last 60 years.
I oppose wind power because it's often not all that "green".
http://www.carlineconomics.com...
Building those windmill towers takes a lot of steel and concrete that could be put to better energy use, like nuclear power. I don't know how off shore wind power plays into this environmental disaster that on shore wind, but it can't be all that great if it costs twice as much to build out than onshore wind.
As far as "green" energy goes wind isn't nearly as bad as solar. I believe that wind could actually be profitable without government subsidy. Onshore wind produces energy that is about the same as natural gas or hydro, which is a fraction of the cost of solar energy. The carbon footprint of wind is on par with hydro, nuclear, which is a fraction of the carbon footprint of solar.
The problem with wind is the mess it can leave behind. Wind is not regulated like coal or nuclear. If you shut down a coal plant it must be cleared to a "brownfield" standard, meaning nothing left but bare dirt. Nuclear has to be torn down to "greenfield" standard, meaning what's left must be a grassland or forest. Wind is allowed to be abandoned, with rusted towers left in place. Sometimes they are required to tear down to a "grey-field" standard, where the towers and above ground structures must be removed but the buried concrete anchors can remain.
For a grey field to become useful again the concrete must be found useful as structural elements for industrial use, or removed with lots of diesel powered machinery. Only after it is removed can the ground be used for agriculture or wildlife. I assume if left to rot the concrete would slowly weather into rubble, but that would take centuries.
If the goal is cheap energy then wind can play along with coal, natural gas, and nuclear. When it comes to being "green" it seems only nuclear and wind apply. Solar isn't all it's cracked up to be, with the toxic materials involved and difficulty in recycling. Hydro might work but I wonder about such things as the Rio Grande not reaching the Gulf any more. Geothermal seems cheap and carbon free but it only works in places like Iceland and Hawaii.
The energy future looks like nuclear for base load, wind power when and where it is cheap, hydro for storage and load following where it is available. When we run out og hydro then we'll have to go to natural gas for peak load matching, at least in the near term. Synthetic fuels derived from excess nuclear capacity at low demand times can be tanked to burn later in converted natural gas turbines. Batteries might play a role if the price is right, which is unlikely. We'll probably have air cooled brayton cycle nuclear before the batteries get too far. Air cooled nuclear with turbines can load follow just as well as any natural gas turbine, since they work on the same physics.
If we get air cooled nuclear power then I have my doubts that even wind can compete on being as cheap or "green". Hydro will be around for a long time yet if only because we invested so much into it that it would be a shame not to let it run until it is no longer profitable. If wind survives this then it will be pumping water for hydro, or desalination, or to bring fresh water across long distance. Not for electricity.
I'm sorry for rambling on for a bit, but my medicine started to kick in as I typed. I think I'mn done heire for know. goooddnight.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Actually no, the turbines are independent of line frequency. Unless there's something modifying things, they will spin at the optimal speed to extract the maximum amount of energy out of the wind.
The trick here is that the power goes through a high voltage DC step (and in this case, I presume the transmission to shore will be done using HVDC) then back through utility-scale inverters and into the AC used on the grid. The reason why you see them all spinning at the same speed is that the ones in shot are in similar wind conditions, so will be turning at the same speed (or at their max speed, whichever is lower).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Wind is allowed to be abandoned, with rusted towers left in place. Sometimes they are required to tear down to a "grey-field" standard, where the towers and above ground structures must be removed but the buried concrete anchors can remain.
You must live in a weird and unusually slack judiciary.
In other words, this part of your worries/opposition to wind power has nothing to do with a shortcoming in the industry but everything with a shortcoming in your legal system.
Additionally, land must be extremely cheap when the owners just let it lay fallow.
Where I live the ~25 y/o turbines, in the day the largest on shore wind farm in Europe, were removed after new rows of nearly 200 meter giants were put alongside them.
http://www.windparknoordoostpo...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I oppose them because plans for and the cost of decommissioning them is not part of the budget planning.
Get your legal system fixed!
Also, there are environmental concerns not well researched and understood yet, like underseas power cables and their impact on oceanic marine life with electrical sensory organs. Sharks have displayed problems from low voltage underseas cables, even when quite thickly insulated. It may well be ok, but I still want a bit more research before jumping on something because ooh windcraft!
Underwater power cables exists for many years, probably for over a century, and the technology plus environmental impact is well understood.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I oppose it because all of the things we're putting into the ocean is causing water levels to rise. At 11,500 tons, what poor island is going to be flooded due to our greed? Don't believe me? Just look at the historical data. The more tonnage we put into the oceans the more floods occur. Remember when Noah built his massive boat, a boat big enough to fit a pair of every living create on it as well as food and supplies? He flooded the whole world with his floating zoo obsession. Lets not repeat the same mistake with massive floating fans designed to cool the coasts. Aren't beaches windy enough?
If you have evidence that turbines disproportionately affect certain species, please cite it.
Otherwise, this chart shows that windows, communication towers, and even high-tension wires each kill thousands of times more birds annually, and those things are everywhere.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
you'd be lucky if you could find a spot in the North Sea that isn't windy
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
https://www.nature.com/article...
"If we get air cooled nuclear power then I have my doubts that even wind can compete on being as cheap or "green"." - no-one who promotes nuclear seems to include the extortionate build/decommission costs or subsidies given to nuclear industry. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'm just a little bit skeptical about the price and.. ..well. in the blurb it uses sneaky word tactics. see how it says that a price drop is expected. and that would make it cheaper than nuclear.
It's not that hard to be cheaper than nuclear when you consider ALL the costs and the amount of regulation needed to ensure safety. The full cost of insuring nuclear tends to get overlooked. I'm not aware of any fission plant that does not require a nation state to provide insurance guarantees in order to get built. While they are relatively safe in general, no private insurance company is going to write a policy against something like Chernobyl. Nuclear is cost competitive with subsidies (insurance and otherwise) but it's not so cheap that you cannot imagine solar or wind being cheaper in the right circumstances. Not to mention that the cost of solar and wind generation are falling MUCH faster than the cost of nuclear fission generation. I don't have any principled objections to fission generation (and I prefer it to fossil fuels) but let's not pretend it's "too cheap to meter".
(presumably nuclear with nuclear plant profits though calculated in, making it kinda like "cheaper than oil" when oil has plenty of profit built into it, making the price flexible downwards as soon as someone has a better energy source)
Well, oil and other fossil fuels get subsidies amounting to about $5 Trillion globally every year (that's about 6% of global GDP in case you wondered) and I'm not even counting the cost of the environmental problems they cause. And yes, the profits are part of the equation too but if a new energy source (say solar) gets cheap enough to eat into the profit margins of oil then it is by definition competitive and that's a good thing. And frankly if I have my choice between a relatively clean renewable energy source and fossil fuels for about the same cost then it is a no brainer.
tech geek?.. hand you card in NOW.. anyone with a clue would use something that can be as cheap as one of these puppies... Monster HTS200 HT Power Centre... surged and spike protection for mains.. just what would have kept you safe
The anti-turbine mob are all nimbys worried about spoiling their views
What's so bad about not wanting your views spoiled?
Nothing at all. It doesn't mean your want will trump everyone's need however. If you really need pristine natural views that look like they have not been touched by humans, you need to go to places that are pretty close to pristine, with very few humans.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I've looked over their website and it's just full of lies and scaremongering.
One lie is that U-233 is weapons grade material. First, the U-233 that comes from a thorium reactor is so tainted with other uranium isotopes that it cannot be handled safely without very expensive processing. Second, a U-233 weapon is theoretical, no one has yet built one successfully. Sure, there were devices that contained U-233 that went *BOOM* but they were considered duds. Anyone that has the technology to turn U-233 into weapons grade material won't need the reactor, they can use common dirt and process that to get U-235 instead.
Also, what are we supposed to so with all the weapons we have now? Break them apart and pretend this valuable plutonium doesn't exist? That plutonium can be turned into energy in a nuclear reactor. If this organization wants to be rid of nuclear weapons then they should be advocating for nuclear energy. The only way to destroy nuclear weapons material is in a nuclear reactor. You can try to contaminate it with other materials, bury it in a deep enough hole, but it will still be there for someone to dig back up and turn into weapons again.
Getting back to the cost of nuclear energy I keep hearing on how nuclear energy is so expensive. That's because it is a self fulfilling prophesy. The people that license nuclear energy don't want it to be successful so they make it expensive. These projects are always over budget because the powers that be just cannot leave them alone and let them finish. Because if they did actually let them finish then the lie of expensive nuclear energy would be exposed as the lie it is.
Nuclear energy can be safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap. We know this because we've been getting safe, reliable, plentiful, and cheap energy from nuclear power for decades. Chernobyl was 30 years ago and none of the reactors like it exist anymore. Same for Three Mile Island which was 40 years ago. Fukushima was an accident at an aging nuclear power plant and no new ones would be built like it either. If people fear nuclear power accidents then we need new nuclear to replace the old nuclear or energy is going to get expensive, unreliable, harder to find, and not nearly as safe.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.