Overclock.net banner

[TR] The World’s First Floating Wind Farm Is Now Producing Energy.

3K views 66 replies 26 participants last post by  Forceman 
#1 ·


https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/609170/the-worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-is-now-producing-energy/
Quote:
Over 15 miles from the coast of Scotland, a wind power project could foreshadow a major part of our clean-energy future. Hywind Scotland, situated in Buchan Deep, is the world's first floating wind farm, with its five six-megawatt turbines now generating electricity. On shore, a one-megawatt-hour lithium battery also helps smooth its potentially erratic supply of electricity to the grid.

Floating wind farms far out at sea hold a lot of promise for future energy generation. A recent analysis showed that they operate more efficiently than those on land or close to the coast, to the extent that three million square kilometers of floating wind turbines could supply the entire world's current energy demand. It's also a concept that's catching on elsewhere, with a scheme similar to the Scottish project under consideration in California.
So this is pretty freaking cool. The picture feels like something out of a sci-fi novel.
yessir.gif
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
what about hurricanes and tycoons etc, also this is awesome
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by adventfred View Post

what about hurricanes and tycoons etc, also this is awesome
I imagine floating helps a lot with that, move with the waves don't fight them.
wink.gif


Also I am sure they can remotely disengage the turbines to avoid damage from high winds. Assuming they turbines can be made robust enough this really does look light a great idea.
 
#4 ·
It actually opened on a week that a storm (Ophelia) passed by. But they are quite storm resilient in most cases, unless they develop a fault. They have automatic shutdown monitoring. There's an article about onshore wind turbines in storms, so I'd imagine the hywind turbines have similar protections. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-24706238
 
#7 ·
#8 ·
Good way to keep the nimby's at bay.

I wonder if the lack of purchasing land for these can offset the extra costs of making them? Hopefully they are cheaper overall.

You know who would be good at setting these things up and maintaining them? Offshore oilmen
rolleyes.gif
 
#9 ·
15 miles out to sea means international waters I believe, which means these things are operating without oversight, safety regulation or taxation.

I can't imagine the navigation hazard these things are. Imagine if these become popular all the ships drifting into them.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

15 miles out to sea means international waters I believe, which means these things are operating without oversight, safety regulation or taxation.

I can't imagine the navigation hazard these things are. Imagine if these become popular all the ships drifting into them.
Nothing that lights and a foghorn couldn't fix or that the human brain can't adapt to their existence. See/hear them, avoid. Like any obstacle. The coast, itself, is more treacherous.

Would hope it wouldn't be something so trivial that prevents these from being implemented.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

I can't imagine the navigation hazard these things are. Imagine if these become popular all the ships drifting into them.
They probably won't put them in shipping lanes.
tongue.gif


I think regulation will be ok, 15 miles isn't to completely unregulated territory. From Wikipedia: International waters:
Quote:
The Convention on the High Seas was replaced by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed in 1982, which recognized Exclusive Economic Zones extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline, where coastal States have sovereign rights to the water column and sea floor as well as the natural resources found there.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrasonic View Post

Btw, this is pretty cool.

I like simple, effective (and clean) ways to produce energy when possible.
It looks like it's only effective (profitable) because the government is paying a subsidy of 3x the worth of the electricity it can generate - without paying 4 times the going rate for electricity (which is relatively high in the UK anyway?) it wouldn't exist. I should think they'll only be selling them to countries that are struggling to meet their agreed "green energy" quotas.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren9 View Post

It looks like it's only effective (profitable) because the government is paying a subsidy of 3x the worth of the electricity it can generate - without paying 4 times the going rate for electricity (which is relatively high in the UK anyway?) it wouldn't exist. I should think they'll only be selling them to countries that are struggling to meet their agreed "green energy" quotas.
I'm not really talking about the real-world Geo-political applications.

It's a wind turbine. They are simple and they do work at producing electricity. This is that same tech/methods used in a place where the is otherwise no use of that space.

I would call that simple and effective. Unfortunately, we do a damn good job making sure these things don't happen, for one reason or another. Meh. Politics are real but very boring.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
The sticking point, for now at least, is cost. Bloomberg reports that the Buchan Deep project cost a total of $263 million to complete. It currently receives $185 per megawatt-hour of subsidies from the British government, on top of the $65 per megawatt-hour it earns for the wholesale price of the electricity it creates. In other words, it's damned expensive.

Statoil says that it hopes floating wind farms could produce energy for between $50 and $70 per megawatt-hour by 2030. That's terribly ambitious-but if it manages the feat, expect to see more wind turbines popping up in the middle of the ocean before long.
$263 million for 30 megawatts of installed capacity... Installed capacity and production are seldom 1:1...

Just for comparison, India built a 648 MW solar plant last year for $679 Million...
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rluker5 View Post

Good way to keep the nimby's at bay.

I wonder if the lack of purchasing land for these can offset the extra costs of making them? Hopefully they are cheaper overall.

You know who would be good at setting these things up and maintaining them? Offshore oilmen
rolleyes.gif
LoL ! Just as well that the region is just about dry of oil now....

dunx

P.S. With subsidies like that I could pedal a cycle-powered generator 16 hours a day and be wealthy ! ! !
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by HanSomPa View Post

For the record that comes out to 8,800$ per kW. Natural gas is between 1000$-2000$ per kW.

What I really wanna know is how are they running the power back to the continent and how much it costs them.
The British Isles (which aren't a continent, btw; the power is being sent to Scotland) have limited fuel reserves and probably have to import much of their fuel, which runs the cost way up. It also makes them vulnerable to shortages should their overseas supply of fuel be blocked for whatever reason. The wind farm harvests energy from a source that will most likely always be available, despite climate change, unlike some land based wind farms (look at the wind farms around Palm Springs; they have been idle most of the time for over a decade because the stiff winds that used to blow through there are pretty much gone). And, unlike land based wind farms, these wind farms to not eat up real estate and are less likely to kill birds. Cost is pretty much moot when the alternative is inadequate to no power.

Underwater power transmission technology has been around for decades. It's how islands just offshore often get power from the mainland. Again, cost is moot when the alternative is no power.
 
#22 ·
#23 ·
Nice! Used to live in the highlands of Scotland and damn is it rainy and windy. East or West coast, it's one of the windiest places I have ever lived. Good thing they got these going up. Gives all those engineers that are left without jobs in Aberdeen some work after the price of oil fell.
 
#24 ·
The cable costs and total costs must be quite crazy. Why weren't they using these natural resources before... costs, that's why. For many countries such locations aren't available and nuclear power is the go to. Solar and wind are neat but not reliable enough and quite location dependent.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

The cable costs and total costs must be quite crazy. Why weren't they using these natural resources before... costs, that's why. For many countries such locations aren't available and nuclear power is the go to. Solar and wind are neat but not reliable enough and quite location dependent.
They didn't use these before because during the 70's, oil boomed in the NE of Scotland, ever since then, the big oil companies have been sucking as much money as they could out of the North Sea. From time to time, there is a crash, but they always recovered. The lifestyle of these oil tycoons in the NE is absurd. Also, A LOT of this money was poorly managed, and on top of that, most of it does not go back into the governments hands, but rather, big private international corps like Total, BP, Shell etc. Even the UK government admitted they poorly managed it. Can't find the article but it was posted in July or August this year.

Anyways, my point is that they didn't care about being sustainable. It was about enjoying the ride. Now they don't have a choice. A lot of change is going to happen in the UK within the next 20 years. Let alone this Brexit crap...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top