Slashdot Mirror
First Floating Wind Farm Delivers Electricity (arstechnica.com)
The world's first floating offshore wind farm began delivering electricity to the Scottish grid today. "The 30MW installation, situated 25km (15.5mi) from Peterhead in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, will demonstrate that offshore wind energy can be harvested in deep waters, miles away from land, where installing giant turbines was once impractical or impossible," reports Ars Technica. "At peak capacity, the wind farm will produce enough electricity to power 20,000 Scottish homes." From the report: The installation, called Hywind Scotland, is also interesting because it was built by Statoil, a Norwegian mega-corporation known for offshore oil drilling. Statoil has pursued offshore wind projects in recent years, using the companyâ(TM)s experience building and managing infrastructure in difficult open sea conditions to its advantage. Hywind Scotland began producing power in September, and today it starts delivering electricity to the Scottish grid. Now, all that's left is for Statoil and its partner company Masdar to install a 1MWh lithium-ion battery, charmingly called âoeBatwind,â on shore. Batwind will help the offshore system regulate power delivery and optimize output. After a number of small demonstration projects, the five 6MW turbines are the first commercial turbines to lack a firm attachment to the seafloor. They're held in place using three giant suction anchors, which are commonly used in offshore oil drilling. Essentially, an enormous, empty, upside-down âoebucketâ is placed on the seafloor, and air is sucked out of the bucket, which forces the bucket downward, further into the seafloor sediment. The report mentions a 2013 video that shows how offshore wind farms work.
It's a dumb joke... but it's mine.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
A typical power plant is often on the order of 100s of MW http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/how-is-electricity-measured.html, but this is of course what will be just the first such, and more will follow. Since they have a large battery farm, it will also not suffer from the general problem that many solar and wind farms have of being essentially intermittent in their production and often producing more power than one needs sometimes with no way to store it. Taken together with the fact that new wind systems are so efficient that many are repowering wind farms early https://electrek.co/2017/10/16/new-wind-turbine-efficiency-so-great-utilities-repowering-farms-early/, it appears that we're finally at a point where wind is starting to be a a serious competitor. Even if natural as were not killing coal and oil, solar and wind would seem to be doing almost as effective a job.
There's probably no A/Cs in Scotland... and who knows maybe they don't use electricity for heating either. Oh, and it's the EU so energy saving light-bulbs are mandatory.
There are quite a few brilliant heating systems around the world that use excess heating from electricity production, or waste incinerators... When heating is supplied to your house through a hot water pipe it's possible to get a very impressive efficiency.
Heating water and installing hot water pipes is boring technology, but well proven and probably one of the more cost efficient ways to reduce greenhouse emissions. Even if the heating origins from burning stuff.
Homes in the UK mostly use natural gas for heating.
The UK's average household electricity consumption is slightly below the EU average - which, in turn, is less than half of the US average.
Trolling much?
Firstly, it's not Scotland's use that is important, since the UK has a grid that covers Scotland, England and Wales.
Secondly, and I don't know if this is a good or bad measure, but households in the UK use more electricity per household than in many other European countries. Of course the number is much lower than in the USA, which is profligate in its domestic electricity use.
Note that many people use electricity for heating. They use storage heaters, which store heat when electricity is cheap (at night) and release it during the day.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They were being conservative. 30 MW / 20,000 homes = 1500 Watts per home.
That's higher than the average U.S. home's consumption. 10812 kWh per year / 8766 hours per year = 1233 Watts per home.
Essentially, an enormous, empty, upside-down âoebucketâ is placed on the seafloor, and air is sucked out of the bucket, which forces the bucket downward, further into the seafloor sediment.
If there's a lot of air in that bucket, you're going to have a hard time getting it to the bottom. I'd guess they actually just open the suction hole and let the air flow out and fill it with water as they're lowering it, then once it's on the bottom they suck water out. The flow of water over the bottom edge seems like it would loosen the sand and make it easier for the bucket to sink, at the same time that the water pressure on top of the bucket (due to the pressure differential from the suction) would force it downward.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Jesus fuck, beau, we know you don't fucking edit anything but for fuck's sake at least strip the unicode when you cut and paste someone else's work for your summaries.
Whatâ(TM)s wrong with the summary?
#DeleteFacebook
Salt water and electrical stuff tend to not mix, so how do they send (high voltage?) power - Must be some impressive insulation.
Thanks for dropping by, genius. Electricity has been transmitted underwater for 100 years; offshore wind turbines have been around for 1/4 century. It's all transmitted by pixies.
Here's a photo of the cross-section of a similar cable. It's pretty impressive.
The above cable contains 3 wires, each 500mm^2 in cross section. It's rated at 245kV, but I think it runs at 230kV, meaning it can carry 860A at full capacity.
dom
Oh, and it's the EU so energy saving light-bulbs are mandatory.
No they aren't. They were going to ban them in 2012, and then they were going to have another go in 2016, but they are still available in high street shops. You might struggle to find them in a supermarket or department store though, you need to go to a proper lighting supplier or electrical shop.
That said, most people in their homes now have non-incandescent lamps for regular lighting. Things like the lights in ovens are still incandescent and you can still get replacement bulbs.
-----
I don't think you're allowed to use that trademark when commenting in blogs. IANAL
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
They use cables. You should look them up, it'll blow your mind.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
In the 1970's the lochs (reservoirs) in Argyllshire were converted to hydro electric (with many switched off because the electricity is not required) and the amazing Cruachan hydro scheme can start generating in 25 seconds for burst load on the national grid.
All the social provided housing in my area is being fitted with PV Solar panels and there is huge wind generation offshore with quite a bit onshore as well. Scotland is one of the windiest places in Europe.
see the daily wind generation stats here.
As someone who thinks you're an extremely stupid piece of whale excrement, I assume you know nothing at all about anything. I am sure Statoil has no engineers on staff to figure stuff out. They totally missed the boat by not contacting Mr. AC EE.
Please drown yourself in a kiddie pool.
And never forgetting that no fossil fuel would be remotely competitive if their externalised costs were included on the sticker.
Your premise is correct but let's be accurate. Yes you are correct that fossil fuels do not have to include the cost of all their externalities (pollution, carbon, etc) which would add VERY substantially to their price. Not to mention the subsidies to the tune of several trillion dollars annually worldwide. But there are applications for fossil fuels for which there currently are no practical alternatives such as jet fuel, so saying they wouldn't be competitive requires some clarification about the circumstances. Furthermore there are use cases where fossil fuels are and will remain the most practical and economic source of power for the foreseeable future even if you suddenly were to burden them with the full cost of the pollution they cause.
Don't get me wrong, I think fossil fuels present a real and present danger but the goal should be to minimize their use since getting rid of them completely isn't going to happen.
Heating water and installing hot water pipes is boring technology...
Especially in Iceland. When you need hot water, you just drill for it.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't even want to imagine what an âoebucketâ is. Sounds formidable.
Oh don't be a mo.... oh. Nice.
Salt water and electrical stuff tend to not mix, so how do they send (high voltage?) power - Must be some impressive insulation.
Underwater transmission lines are not the problem here, but with time rotating mechanical parts exposed to salt spray will be. Each wind turbine nacelle has about the same mechanical complexity as an automatic transmission.
Oh, and it's the EU so energy saving light-bulbs are mandatory.
While this quote didn't have a direct negative connotation to it, I'm going to assume by the tone that they don't like that they can't buy incandescent any more. My question is why? I hate incandescent lights. I have two ceiling fans and a chandelier that I am continuously changing bulbs on. It doesn't matter if it's "expensive" GE bulbs or the cheapest ones I can find at WallMart, they just don't last. Dimmable LED bulbs from WallMart go for around $2-3 a piece. The fact that these lights are the most used in my house means I'll likely make up the cost difference in a big hurry, and I (hopefully) will spend less time on a ladder changing light bulbs.
Secondly, and I don't know if this is a good or bad measure, but households in the UK use more electricity per household than in many other European countries. Of course the number is much lower than in the USA, which is profligate in its domestic electricity use.
Note that many people use electricity for heating. They use storage heaters, which store heat when electricity is cheap (at night) and release it during the day.
The US has a quite a few cities where the average high is 85F or more for 1/3 to 1/2 of the year. The US also has very low electricity prices, Google tells me that UK electricity costs around 15.5 pence (~$0.20)per KW/hr, which is nearly double my rate.
I live in the southern part of the US, and my electricity cost peaks at ~$200 per month in the summer. The biggest energy saving measure I could take (aside from removing my pool) would be to install double pane windows. The cost for that ranges from $18k to $45k (I have many large windows). If doing that saved $50/month in AC costs , it would pay for itself in 30 years. The US is generally fairly efficient as far as electricity goes. Despite population increases, especially in the southern US, our electricity use has remained flat or decreased over the past 15 years. I would argue we are as efficient as the current economics dictate.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Well, it does not really make sense to use the peak output of a power plant and the 'assumed households number' it can supply to calculate the average power consumption of those households.
Your mind gymnastics was for nothing. Of hou had tried to take a capacity factor into account it would have been more fruitful, but still not leading to the goal :)
See here: https://www.ovoenergy.com/guid...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If only there would be ways to make things water tight ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I also live in the southern US, and installed low E argon filled windows two decades ago. They dropped my electricity bill by maybe 10%. My original equipment furnace/AC units failed ten years ago, and I replaced them with ultra high efficiency HVAC (giant outside condensers etc). That cost a lot, but I had no choice about the replacement and the marginal cost of high efficiency was a few thousand each for the three floors of my house. That (plus finishing my attic and adding 16" of insulation under the roof in addition to the floored in attic insulation that was already there) dropped my bill by another 25%.
The problem with all of this is that now my house is down to an EPP payment of $145/month (big house, air conditioning, perimenopausal wife so we keep it pretty cold). This basically means that I have little marginal benefit left to receive if I install something like rooftop solar. The amortization time stretches out to over ten years, and while I've probably amortized the cost of the windows and the extra marginal cost (at least) of the HVAC, rooftop solar plus 30 KWH of battery (or more) would cost more than all three HVAC units combined. I keep looking into ways of doing it at zero out of pocket investment, and NC has just passed a bunch of laws that may make it possible -- basically finance it for the cost of my current electric bill over whatever, ten years. If I can work this out, I'll probably do it.
In other words, I agree that we are as efficient as the current economies dictate, although the rapidly changing CBA for both rooftop solar and commercial solar is going to be changing that over the next three years. Duke Power is planning to install 2.6 GW of solar in NC over the next three years. That is a bit more newsworthy and interesting than installing 30 MW of capacity in Scotland that (I suspect) will amortize "never" unless electricity is incredibly expensive in Scotland. At $0.11/KWH (which is pretty much what I pay in NC IIRC) it takes around 12 years for rooftop solar to pay for itself, assuming it lasts that long without any additional expense, and that is just too damn long.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Shocking!
At least when the wind blows...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Your larger electricity use (compared to the UK) is probably largely due to living in a house that is much larger than the average house in Europe.
Electricity per household use in Italy is considerably lower than in the UK. Italy is a much hotter country than the UK.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Tinkerbell said, "Let my people go!"
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Sorry, but someone who needs AC when the temperature is 85F is probably an idiot.
I'm to lazy to look it up, but 100F is body temperature (37C). I would not activate any AC below something like 130F.
OTOH my GF is a Thai, she cools down her car to 16C. I got a bladder infection because of driving to much with her. Now I always have a thick jacket in her car.
Most places on earth that I visited, where people were using AC don't need AC.
Either you simply construct better buildings (e.g. as in Germany or UK or for that matter: Spain) or it is actually not "that hot". The idea that you need AC (which implies you are inside of a building) is just overrated or just utter nonsense most of the time.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There are plenty of ways to make things water tight. However, said things tend to be stationary and without rotational/moving bits on them. Thus even ships need bilge pumps to deal with leakage around the prop shaft - and those seals are really well developed over a hundred plus years...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"I would not activate any AC below something like 130F"
Wow, you're hardcore. The European Heat Wave of 2003 killed thousands at lower temps than that.
"my GF is a Thai, she cools down her car to 16C. I got a bladder infection because of driving to much with her. Now I always have a thick jacket in her car"
?? Thailand is a fucking hot country - I can't believe anyone who grew up there would enjoy temps that cool.
I spent a couple decades working outdoors in northern climates so 16C sounds like heaven to me & I'm quite uncomfortable above 22 - 25C especially if it's humid
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
+1 Informative
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Wow, you're hardcore. The European Heat Wave of 2003 killed thousands at lower temps than that.
That is nonsense.
People died in areas where it was much hotter, and they behaved stupid.
Thailand is a fucking hot country ... ... obviously it is hot,
It is not. The coast is to windy to be hot and the northern oart is to high to be hot.
I suggest to travel there once
Of course if you are stuck in a big city
- I can't believe anyone who grew up there would enjoy temps that cool. :)
She is wearing her pelt inside of the car, unless she is giving it to me, because my skin is becoming blue
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"That is nonsense.
People died in areas where it was much hotter"
130 F is FIFTY-FOUR deg Celsius.
The vast majority of people who died in the 2003 heatwave were stiff & cold long before it got that hot - which it didn't ANYWHERE
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Ooops, my fault, I calculated in my head and got it wrong. ... at least not in the UK, hottest day way 38.5 degrees C 10 August 2003.
Anyway, it was not that hot
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/l...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.