A world first: 5MWp turbine installed offshore, 44 meter deep water.

[skids]

The space race is so old hat. It's awful hard for the U.S. to compete in the new race, though, when our leaders missed the starting gun.

Hamburg, Germany (RenewableEnergyAccess.com) For the first time, an REpower type 5M wind turbine has been set up on the open sea. In the Scottish North Sea, in the Moray Firth, the first of a total of two turbines for the "Beatrice" demonstrator wind farm has just been set up on a lattice-like jacket structure, piled to the seabed at a depth of 44 meters. Never before have wind turbines been set up in water this deep, according to the company.

...

Furthermore, it is currently the biggest turbine offshore with a nameplate capacity of 5 megawatts (MW). Prior to the installation, a floating crane barge carried the turbine with more than 900 tons on its hooks, 25 kilometers on the open sea from the port of Nigg. It is there that the two 5M wind turbines are shortly to be linked to the grid connection of the "Beatrice Alpha" oil rig and then commissioned.

...

The successful offshore installation is the current high point of REpower's development, which began several years ago. On the basis of favorable conditions for wind power use at sea - wide space, high wind speeds and less turbulence than on land - REpower had commenced the development of a very powerful 5 megawatt turbine. The 5M prototype has been running since the end of 2004 in Brunsbuettel/Schleswig-Holstein.

http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45877

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. WOW. Just look at that thing. It's huge, and yet more aesthetically

pleasing than a stinky ol' oil rig.

[kestrel91316]

9. Hey, once the oil rigs are all decommissioned, we could put these

babies right on them! You know, give the rigs a second life and a second chance to actually serve humanity rather than contribute to its downfall.............sigh.

[jpak]

2. There are 10 MW turbines in the works too

n/t

[silverweb]

3. Beautiful!

I hope we see more and more of these very soon.

[FogerRox]

4. looks kinda cool.

[NNadir]

5. As usual, no mention of the energy it produces, only "peak" power.

Offshore wind power plants, I believe, have a capacity loading of about 25%. (If someone would like to correct me on this, I'm willing to listen.)

Thus this big deal installation, meriting an internet link, will produce 0.0025 as much as a 500 MW station running continuously.

Put another way, it would take 400 of these babies to equal one (small) thermal power plant. Of course the thermal plant would run whenever you need the power.

Of course, when we talk about these magic systems, we always want to avoid questions of scale, since actually contemplating scale would make us recognize that we are really doing next to zero about climate change, even as we pat ourselves on the back excessively.

I, however, have a nasty compulsion to refer to scale since I am concerned with an admittedly none-too-pleasant concept called reality.

The natural gas generating capacity of the United States (winter) as of 2004 was 241,391MWe.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

Operating at 100% capacity, this would be enough to produce 7.62 exajoules of electricity.

To produce an equal amount of electricity, we would need 193,000 of these turbines. Does anyone know where the 193,000 orders have been placed? Only 192,999 more are needed.

Someone could or should point out that by using this spreadsheet:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

we could actually calculate the capacity factor of U.S. natural gas plants, which is 33.5%. So the actual number of wind plants needed would be somewhat smaller - if, to make ourselves feel better when we lie to ourselves - we ignore the fact that the wind doesn't always blow at the same time we need power.

Thus we would "only" need around 65,000 five mega"watt" wind plants of this size, the largest on earth, to displace our natural gas. This of course, still leaves our 25 exajoules of coal in this country (120 exajoules worldwide) with which to deal.

[skids]

6. Their onshore 5M turbine...

...has been running for a year with an average capacity loading of 0.3.

The whole point of moving out into deep water, other than to get out of the "back yard," is to utilize the more regular and reliable ocean wind. I would expect the capacity on these to be signifigantly higher.

(EDIT: on further digging I find they are expecting 25GWa from these, so the capcity loading will be 0.56 -- the selected site has an average annual windspeed of 10m/s)

[NNadir]

7. I wonder why it doesn't give this information anywhere in the article.

Might it not be a little disingenuous to report this as a "five megawatt," wind turbine. If the capacity utilization of this particular turbine is actually 0.4, would it not be more honest to represent it as a "2 MW" on average wind turbine?

Why is it that all breathless renewable energy reports insist on telling us about the "peak" power and not the energy?

I previously suggested a straight forward approach using four sentences to completely describe the system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=65817#65863

Judging from the magnitude of this system, the expense of all the cranes and what have you, I'm quite sure that the builders of this plant have some idea about the average wind speed values for the area and the energy that it might produce.

Here is wind power survey for my state that is honest and clear:

http://www.njcep.com/html/faqs/FINAL_BRP_Wind_FAQ_413051.pdf#search=%22new%20jersey%20wind%20class%22

In fact, they explicitly explain capacity utilization:

What is the general capacity factor a wind energy
system?

A wind energy system is “fueled” by the wind, which blows steadily at times and not at all at other times. During the year there are times when the wind does not blow or at speeds below which the wind turbine will turn to produce energy. Even when the wind is blowing the wind energy system does not always produce energy at its full rated capacity. The capacity factor of wind energy systems ranges from 25 percent to 45 percent. The theoretical maximum capacity factor for a rotor wind turbine is 59 percent. Offshore wind energy systems will achieve higher capacity factors.

Of course, one questions why the theoretical capacity is "59 percent," and what the hell that is supposed to mean, but since this subject is so wrought with misrepresentation one should be glad that the matter is discussed at all.

Here is a report that mentions both peak power and energy:

http://www.njwind.com/project.html

Of course they represent "peak" power and not average power, but from this information it is clear that the developers expect a 0.28 capacity factor based on name plate capacity.

By the way, I support all of the wind power facilities in my state and elsewhere. We could put wind towers at sea all the way from Sandy Hook to Cape May and not hear a peep of protest from me. However I strongly object to magical thinking about energy. We need to understand exactly what we are facing or we will die.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I would still opt for using them anyway. Every little bit of clean energy

helps.

[NNadir]

8. Here is what the Chairman of the Wind Power Company says about nukes.

Built in the 1970s, the Brunsbuettel nuclear power station is still part of the backbone of German energy production, but will soon reach the end of its life cycle because of Germany's drive to phase out nuclear energy.

"I think it's a really charming scene," said Fritz Vahrenholt, chairman of Germany's Repower, the company producing the wind turbine.

"Nuclear reactor meets wind plant. Here the future and over there the past and none of them produces carbon dioxide (CO2)," he said...

...Germany must replace nearly half of its 100,000 MW generation capacity in the next two decades and critics say renewables will never be able to fill that gap.

Wind power, they add, is too reliant on weather conditions.

"Wind power can only complement other energy sources. It cannot replace them," Vahrenholt said.

"I am sure there will be a revival of coal-fired energy production with new technologies such as the isolation of carbon dioxide (CO2) during the generation process."

Germany, which depends on nuclear power for a third of its electricity, still has no clear plan on how to replace reactors such as the one in Brunsbuettel.

"That's why it's foolish to shut the reactors so soon. It would overstrain the German economy. We need more time and have to extend the running times for nuclear plants by 5-7 years."

http://feed.proteinos.com/item/2238

Even one of the leading industrialists in the renewable energy business is conceding that the German anti-nuclear crusade means more coal.

He is clueless of course, about where this separated carbon dioxide will go in which he is so confident will go, of course, and is satisfied to ask for just another 5 to 7 years, beyond 2020 for nuclear power. In 2025, his successors will be burning more coal of course, ripping the guts out of the earth, poisoning the air - if, of course, there is air, or "air" as we know it, at all.

[Arctic W Fox]

11. For some people...

The glass is always half empty.


"Furthermore, it is currently the biggest turbine offshore with a nameplate capacity of at least ZERO megawatts (MW)."

Would that make you feel better? :sarcasm: :nopity:

[NNadir]

12. Actually the Germans are draining the glass out on the desert floor,

and telling everyone about how wonderful it tastes.

That they can assemble an ounce of spit is not comforting to anyone, even if the spit involved is spitting in the wind.

Significant energy for global climate change is measured in exajoules. If there was anything in the glass at all, half, one eight, one two hundred and fiftieth, it would be measured in exajoules. However if the glass is empty, save some vapor, someone needs to say so, or everyone will die of thirst.

If one considers matters of scale and not matters of low level wit, one finds that confusing zero with infinity is actually a serious moral issue in the present case.

[Wilms]

13. I really appreciate your contribution.

I see you as an honest advocate of what you believe is the best way to make a serious effort to stave off the worst of climate change, while pointing out what you see as the weaknesses inherent in a reliance on renewable energy.

It is the latter I most appreciate. If we are going to rely on renewables it's important to understand, in reasonable detail, the task faced, whether one views that as moral, ethical, logical, or plain 'ol practical issue.

Too often for my comfort, the noise from the debate about how to produce energy distracts us from another important factor in the equation. Consumption and Waste, also what is referred to as "Demand". (Consumers don't "need" or "want" or "request". They "Demand".)

What will nuclear power offer us? Well, we now know it won't be "too cheap to measure", though we acknowledge that, environmental impact and economic concerns aside, it'll produce however much we "Demand".

And just what will consumers demand? What they always do. More. (Like Key Largo's Johnny Rocco.) More energy with which to consume other resources.

The owner of a hybrid car or windmill, through attention, brings conservation. A McMansion owner just increases their "Demand". (Interestingly, the financial, as well as environmental, cost of the increased capacity is probably borne by all.)

While behavior is more the realm of the social scientist, rather than the physical ones, one may find that confusing energy production requirements with energy 'Demand' is, too, a serious moral issue.

[NNadir]

17. Thanks. I agree with your last statement.

Sometimes I may come across as indicating that we need to produce 440 exajoules (or more) forever. Actually I don't think we can produce 440 exajoules forever and that the attempt would rather be like Russian Roulette with six bullets in six chambers.

I believe that we must manage ourselves to demand far less energy. However most people predict that energy demand will rise, one hears numbers like 1000 exajoules. I don't agree. I think energy demand will fall, but that the fall will involve catastrophe rather than result from rational planning.

[Arctic W Fox]

14. Knock knock...

There's that "half empty" mentallity again. You should try to be more positive.
Or, think of a better option, oh witty one.

We can't use 50 MW, it's gonna take 50 Bajillion Tarawatts to make us happy...
Well, we know this, but who's going to pay for a 50 Bajillion Tarawatt generator? I can come up with US$10k. She can come up with US$23k. They can come up with US$700.

We're doing what we can with what monies are available. Small moves, Sparks. :)

[NNadir]

15. Knock, Knock back. You may think that energy and climate involves

happy faces.

I don't agree. There is nothing adequate going on. I know what "can" be done just as well as I know what cannot be done. It is the magnitude of the complacency and frankly moral and intellectual laziness that has created this intractable emergency. Substituting feel good "booster thoughts" will make the matter worse, much worse.

If you're not tore up with grief about what's going on, you're not thinking.

[skids]

16. If you're not tore up with grief, you're not thinking

Now there's a statement I entirely endorse.