Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Utility Plans Massive Wind Farm Island In North Sea (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Britain's homes could be lit and powered by wind farms surrounding an artificial island deep out in the North Sea, under advanced plans by a Dutch energy network. The radical proposal envisages an island being built to act as a hub for vast offshore wind farms that would eclipse today's facilities in scale. Dogger Bank, 125km (78 miles) off the East Yorkshire coast, has been identified as a potentially windy and shallow site. The power hub would send electricity over a long-distance cable to the UK and Netherlands, and possibly later to Belgium, Germany, and Denmark. TenneT, the project's backer and Dutch equivalent of the UK's National Grid, recently shared early findings of a study that said its plan could be billions of euros cheaper than conventional wind farms and international power cables. The sci-fi-sounding proposal is sold as an innovative answer to industry's challenge of continuing to make offshore wind cheaper, as turbines are pushed ever further off the coast to more expensive sites as the best spots closer to land fill up.
The Dutch have expanded into the ocean and used wind power for quite a while.
They've expanded their country by building dikes, pumping out water using windmill pumps, and reclaiming the seabed.
Building an artificial island and surrounding it with windmills to generate enormous amounts of electrical energy (rather than, say, building nuclear reactors) is right in character. B-)
(Back in the mid 20th century, one of the Lampoon magazines had a joke conspiracy theory article about the Dutch taking over the world by expanding out into the ocean and pushing the water up onto everybody else's country. It somehow involved people in other countries being awakened by the sound of chainsaws, wielded by invading Dutch military squads, being applied to their kitchen doors (to convert them into the two-segment, house-ventilating, "Dutch doors").)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Power cables like this are a tad too thick for "snip".
But yes, multiple cables is preferable, because the surface area is bigger, and electricity only travels along the surface of cables.
I would like to know the environmental impact of the cables, though. Doggerbank is home to a lot of fish species, precisely because the water isn't that deep. Many of which have electricity sensing organs. Signal cables are bad enough for some types of sharks. It needs to be investigated what the impact is for power cables, both those lying on the ocean floor and those hanging from the windmillls.
"How did they solve the Don Quixote problem? ;)"
Water. Lots and lots of water.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
By sending it to Spain?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.
The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.
We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reason the world's leading climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change
Also Germany tried what you did and they have failed. Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and their electricity is 10x dirty then their neighbor France. Scroll to the third graph comparing Germany and France. You will notice that Germany emits 560 grams of CO2 per kWh and France emits 58 grams of CO2 per kWh. That is almost 10x.
There are no limits to remewables. One specific might, but as a whole, they aren't limited in the way you imply.
Learn to love Alaska
I bet you can sell wind farm plans to trump quite easily.
"See the dutch thing? we will do it, but with BIGGER towers, and eagle wing shaped turbines! it will make em look like complete wimps!"
What about a nuclear reactor on an artificial island, far from any inhabited area?
Now we're venturing into James Bond Villain territory...
#DeleteChrome
"See the dutch thing? we will do it, but with BIGGER towers, and eagle wing shaped turbines!
"Why do those wing-shaped turbines have a right-angle bend in th- ... oh. I get it."
As for the article: "The sci-fi-sounding proposal" ? If you were born in 1913, perhaps.
Health care that extends to not letting people with mental problems roam the country side on horseback, with weapons from the middle ages.
It won't be long before wind and solar have reached the point where they won't need any subsidies at all to compete with fossil fuels...which no doubt will still enjoy the billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies they get right now.
It's unfortunate that North America squandered its opportunity to lead the world in developing and manufacturing the means to provide renewable energy, thanks to lobbying by fossil fuel corporations and low-information taxpayers who have never figured out how little they spend subsidizing renewables, and how much they spend subsidizing oil, gas, and coal.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Nor any comments about Dutch boys putting their fingers in dykes... er, dikes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In the grandparent post I saw links to a number of very interesting articles on how nuclear power is the only solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The parent post is just ad hominem. Interesting isn't it?
You can claim that wind and solar power is the solution to our greenhouse gas problem but without some kind of data that claim is rather empty, no? Sure, we do in fact see plenty of wind and solar power capacity being developed. In fact I see windmill parts being transported down the interstate daily where I live. I will not dispute the increasing pace of wind and solar energy deployment. What I dispute is the economics of it all. Not just in dollars and cents but in the greenhouse gas emitted.
Nuclear already has a lower greenhouse gas emission rate per energy produce than solar and is on par with wind and hydro. I know the argument, when solar power hits its stride then the greenhouse gas emissions will drop. That's fine, I'll go with that. What happens though when nuclear power hits its stride? It's lower than solar now, what happens when we see cement and steel for the next nuclear reactor getting produced from nuclear power?
Another argument is how energy storage will make wind and solar reliable enough to keep the lights on 24/7 instead of when the sun shines and wind blows. I ask this, what do you think that same electric storage technology could do if paired with an already inherently reliable energy source like nuclear power? I hear the argument on how a failure of a large nuclear power plant could render large areas without power. Sure, that could happen. That would happen now, that is, since we have a "dumb" grid and no storage. What happens if we pair nuclear power with a "smart" grid and battery storage? Or with, what seems to be everyone's favorite energy storage, pumped hydroelectric? Hydroelectric dams are already used now for load following, seasonal scale storage, and such for nuclear power. Just ask the Tennessee Valley Authority. I've seen the facility.
The argument against nuclear seems to me rides on the idea that it is somehow separated from technologies like grid scale battery storage and "smart" grids. Nuclear power can have those things too. Solar and wind as energy sources are impossible without storage and enough "smarts" to manage it all, nuclear does not need them. What happens though if these storage and "smart" technologies are mated with nuclear power then we have something far safer, cheaper, and "greener" than anything solar and wind could do.
That's fine though. Keep claiming that wind and solar will win in the end. I see a different future. A future powered by nuclear reactors.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The article says they'll build an island close to the turbines. The turbines will generate AC and send it a short distance to the island. The island will convert the AC to DC for the long links to the mainland.
I mean, I get it's not an eyesore as some people claim, if it's offshore, but surely the cost of shipping the items out there and running a hefty cable back to land is astronomical? Also servicing?
Is there that little free land in the region?
A few things to consider:
- There is indeed little free space the way it is -- the entire country is about twice the size of New Jersey, with similar population density. (16,000 square miles, over 17,000,000 people, 1062 people per square mile). No sky scrapers.
- The Netherlands is *really* flat -- about half is actually below sea level, and probably over 80% at less than 8m / 25 ft above sea level.
- You'll get much higher wind speeds / more energy generation on top of hills (of which there are few), or off-shore in the middle of unobstructed sea.
- The North Sea is relatively shallow (overall mean depth of 300ft/ 90 meters, but much shallower in many areas. Still, I'd expect that they'd use artificial structures similar to oil drill platforms to install the windmills rather than 'true' islands
In contrast, the U.S. west coast (where winds from the ocean are strongest and most consistent) pretty much has no continental shelf. I'm in Southern California, and when I go fishing, by the time I'm a half km from shore, the water is already deeper than the North Sea. By about 3-5 km offshore, the water is a half kilometer deep. The east coast is better off, with a continental shelf that extends about 50-100 km out that's about 100-200 meters deep. But the wind blows predominantly from west to east, meaning the wind on this continental shelf is mostly spoiled by land, so is inconsistent and doesn't blow as strongly as off Europe. That's why most of the offshore wind in the U.S. has concentrated off the coast of Massachusetts - the land there makes a sharp turn to the east, providing about 200 km of continental shelf with wind unspoiled by land to the west.
The subsidy on oil and gas, if attributed entirely to gasoline alone, works out to about 2.3 cents per gallon. Even if you take the high estimates some people like to use (which includes things like low income assistance to purchase home heating oil), it works out to about 10 cents per gallon. The Federal fuel tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, plus about 30 cents per gallon at the state and local level. So there's no net subsidy for fossil fuels. Rather there's a huge tax on it (albeit not as big as in other countries). Huge enough to more than swamp out the coal subsidies (which are only about 1/4 that of oil and gas subsidies).
So low-information or not, they're still right. The people complaining about the "huge" subsidies fossil fuels get always look at total dollar amounts. The total amount is huge because the vast majority of our energy is still derived from fossil fuels. If you instead look at the subsidy per unit of energy generated (i.e. how much the subsidy skews the price, depending on the energy source), you can see how massive renewable subsidies are compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
There's nothing wrong with this - you want to subsidize technologies you wish to develop more quickly. But arguing rewewables subsidies are underfunded compared to fossil fuels based on total dollar amount is just plain ignorant. It's like complaining that California gets $4 billion in federal highway funding while Wyoming only gets $360 million. It's not because Wyoming is being short-changed, it's because California has a lot more roads (and cars) than Wyoming. The proper comparison in that case would be federal highway dollars per mile of road (or perhaps miles driven on said roads). Just like the proper comparison for energy subsidies is per kWh or per megajoule.
Look, the nuclear industry* has promised us a pony that turned out to glow in the dark and have two heads so many times, that the first time I will support a thorium-based reactor is if private industry develops and runs a prototype for 5 years in the CEO's backyard, not a moment sooner.
Meanwhile, in the real world, nuclear power relies heavily on subsidies, has a massive waste problem and is tied in with the political hairy problem of Proliferation.
The money wasted on new powerplants might as well be spent researching power storage solutions.
*NOTE: I said industry. I am not against nuclear power per se, but the current industry is a malicious beast that massively overpromises and underdelivers, and it has to die and reconstructed before I will take nuclear power seriously as an alternative.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
The Dutch have been building "wind farms" all round the north sea (eg South and East England) for about 300 YEARS, and there have been DC cables carrying megawatts between UK and France since the 1950's.
Plus anything that makes the Dogger Bank more visible to sailors will save a lot of lives in the long run - there are massive numbers of shipwrecks there because of the shallow water. (Nothing to do with Vodka at all, honest).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
George Monbiot, in The Guardian, to his credit, did point out that the greens assume wind and solar will benefit from progress, whilst denying the same progress advantages for nuclear.
We all need energy. All energy companies are vested interests. Sixty years ago the British Coal Board put out a video saying nuclear was not here yet, not a reliable option. Money, politics, vested interests all round, all trying to sway public opinion.
Wind and solar are still in their early phase where it all looks full of future promise.
We, as the public, have not yet seen from experience the downsides, whatever they might be.
Take Britain, which arguably, runs its infrastructure into the ground, and then dumps the bill on the public, like the trains and extortionate ticket prices. Will we one day be footing ever increasing bills for repairs to ageing wind farms? Who knows.
But for now, wind and solar are the new shiny.
Aside from the expense of trying to build such a complex device and supply/maintain it on an island, the extreme weather is probably more than anyone can certify a nuclear plant for anyway.
Why bother spending more on a nuclear plant and running and decommissioning costs when you can just build a cheaper, cleaner wind farm? The wind farm won't need subsidies either, and the energy will be cheaper. Much cheaper.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Seriously? THIS IS NOT NEW NEWS. I live in East Yorkshire. This offshore windfarm which will be four times larger than the worlds current largest has been planned for over half a decade and already has started to be built a few years ago, being built in four stages. Siemens even built a brand new Wind Turbine factory on Hull docks which was completed 2 years ago to build wind turbines and service the windfarm.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams