Photo Credit: Vestas
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (17) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
March 28, 2005

UK's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Now Operational

Caister, Norfolk [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The UK's largest offshore wind farm at Scroby Sands, off Caister, Norfolk, is now officially inaugurated and generating power for as many as 41,000 homes. The occasion marks the culmination of more than a decade of planning and development and reinforces the UK's increasing commitment to commercial-scale renewable energy projects.

"Connecting Scroby Sands to the grid establishes the UK as the world's second-biggest generator of offshore wind power."

- Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

"Today is an exciting step in the UK's energy revolution," said Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. "Connecting Scroby Sands to the grid establishes the UK as the world's second-biggest generator of offshore wind power. Our plans for further offshore wind farms around the UK represent the world's biggest-ever expansion of renewable energy, plans that are good for the environment, good for Britain's energy needs and good for the economy."

The GBP 75 million (US$ 140 million), 60 MW project was developed and is owned and operated by E.ON UK and uses 30, 2 MW wind turbines from Danish wind turbine company Vestas. The site is located on a sand bank known as the Middle Scroby Sands, which lies approximately 3 km east of the Great Yarmouth Borough coastline, in the county of Norfolk.

E.ON UK and Vestas were also involved in the first offshore two turbine pilot project at Blyth Offshore, Northumberland, which helped provide the skills and experience to build Scroby Sands. The Blyth and Scroby projects were supported by European Commission Thermie funding. Timetable consent was granted in April 2002, and E.ON UK started offshore construction in Autumn 2003.

The Scroby Sands wind project is, by far, the most advanced UK utility-scale offshore wind farm, and through feedback of information via a European Union contract will provide valuable information to other developers planning more ambitious projects further offshore.

Most of the areas of seabed to be allocated by Crown Estate are likely to be further offshore than the Scroby Sands wind farm - possibly averaging 5 km as opposed to Scroby's 3 km offshore. As such, the wind turbines at Scroby will be more visible from the shore for a higher percentage of the year than those of future projects. This reflects the fact that the Scroby project is an appropriate 'next step' after Blyth, and will not be typical (in terms of distance from shore) of the majority of future UK offshore wind farms.

E.ON UK is one of the largest renewable generators in the UK. The company has stakes in 20 wind farms across the country, is co-firing biomass alongside coal at two of its power stations and owns the largest hydro power station in England and Wales. The company already has plans for using the experience gained from the construction and early operation of the Scroby Sands wind farm to harness wind energy from more harsh offshore environments in less sheltered waters, around the UK.
Image Gallery (1)
 
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
Reader Comments (17)
 
No image available
Anonymous
March 28, 2005
How is the tower foundation designed? Is it just in the sand or does it go down to solid rock?
Comment 1 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 28, 2005
Good stuff & lets see plenty more of it
Comment 2 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 29, 2005
"With an expected 'load factor' of less than 35%"

This completely mistakes the concepts of "availability" and "load factor".

Load factor is the average percentage of the maximum possible power output of the generator . The turbines are designed to max out only in heavy gust conditions. The turbines run _AS DESIGNED_ at 30-40% maximum under average conditions. In a good site like off-shore areas, they run almost continuously.
"Availability" is a totally different concept.
A nuclear plant runs at essentially 100% maximum power at all times. The UK nuclear fleet averages a load factor of ~75%. This means that a solid 4 months out a year a nuke is COLD and DEAD. A wind farm running at 35% load factor produces power almost continously.
Comment 3 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 29, 2005
I am concerned that over $2,000,000 (US) was spent per MegaWatt compared to $1,000,000 (US) that is normally spent tp produce the equivalent output. Payback is much longer. It is a pity that the turbines cannot be located more in inland areas.
Comment 4 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 29, 2005
All power plants are unreliable, and thus require back-up capacity. Especially nuclear power plants tend to suddenly disconnect from the net. Furthermore nuclear and coal-power plants cannot vary their supply to follow demand and have to be supplemented by gas and/or hydro powerplants. Consequently there is already abundant back-up available and wind energy can supply up to 20% of the total electrical energy with only small investments in additional back-up.


To get beyond this 20% you can improve international connections so you can use the effect that the wind supply is much more constant if you integrate over a larger area, and you can use the storage capacity of existing hydro powerplants.
Comment 5 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 29, 2005
"generating power for as many as 41,000 homes".

This disingenuous nonsense is all part of the spin put out by this pernicious industry.
This windfarm cannot supply one home as the word 'supply' means 24 hours per day 7 days per week. With an expected 'load factor' of less than 35% not a single power station can be closed no matter how many of these 'green' elephants desecrate our sea and landscapes. We, the publi,c are footing the bill for this outrage.

Patricia Hewitt is typical of Blair's team of thugs, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing
Comment 6 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 30, 2005
I have been perplexed at the discussion of the lack of dispatchability of marine wind power production. It seems it would be simple to engineer a compressed air storage system below the water surface that could store surplus wind generated electricity for later delivery.
Comment 7 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 30, 2005
We are on an unsustainable path at present viz a viz .. global warming, greenhouse effect, finite supplies of oil and gas, pollution, increasing population & energy requirements. To the critics of wind power, what about taking a longer term view of things. If we don't work out an alternative to fossil based energy generation soon, it will be too late! For goodness sake contribute something positive instead of just bagging wind power which has the potential to provide unlimited clean power.
Comment 8 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 30, 2005
there is no magic bullet for our energy problems, but people who trash wind are obviously suffering from a deficit in sober rational level-headed analysis.

none of the dozens of wind advocates i have been reading ever claimed it was a miracle energy source, just the most likely source of energy to slow down and help reverse the over and un-sustainable dependence on fossil fuels.


we've gone from .80 cents a kwh to .04-.06 in less than 20 years! coal, nuclear, natural gas, oil, are not likely to get cheaper, given their scarcity. the opposite effect is more likely.

moreover, we are long past the point where we should be blind to the massive subsidies involved in fossil fuel energy production, not to mention its toxic effects. here in the usa, we are stuck with coal as our number 1 source of fuel for electricity


.
Comment 9 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 30, 2005
ALL non renewable energy sources (nuclear, oil and coal) in the U.S.A. are subsidized MUCH MUCH more than wind power. Not to mention the billions of dollars in military aid spent to secure our oil interests abroad. Any informed and sane person would rather have millions of wind turbines in the oceans and on land producing clean renewable energy then have toxic oil spills, acid rain, mercury and radioactive waste from non renewables energy sources.
Comment 10 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 30, 2005
@ Frank Meyer

1) WIndturbines at sea produce more kWh/MW than inland. Cost per kWh therefor do not rise proportiaally.

2) Wind energy at sea is just starting. It will take some time to get the costs down. However, the only way to get the costs down is by gaining experience. At this point we need public funding to travel along the learning curve.
Comment 11 of 17
No image available
March 31, 2005
In counter-balance to an earlier comment about higher costs of on-sea wind farming (vs on-land), in the Oct. 16, 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), researchers suggest the possibility that there may be previously unidentified negative side effects of on-land wind farming. Until we know more about the side effects of on-land and on-sea wind farming, we should (continue to) study both options.
Comment 12 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 31, 2005
What´s worse - a bunch of wind turbines desturbing your eyes out there at sea or even on soil, or 1-2 yards of water covering big stretches of landscape like northern germany (which is my home) from global warming and it´s side effects?

I definitely prefer first.

And the scarce world-wide oil supplies should be used for producing things like modern materials e.g. plastic.

Conspicuously, the opponents of wind energy very rarely make any hints as to how they are going to scope the big-scale problems the earth is facing in future energy production and global climate changes. One wonders: Do they have personal interests in different kinds of energy production or don´t they just care about the future of the civilized world?

Well, why even bother - in the long run, it will be solar energy anyway(which wind energy of course is part of). There is no other alternative.
Comment 13 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 31, 2005
hmmmmm, i wonder whether the dutch kicked up such a fuss when a new windmill was built in their neighbourhood hundreds of years ago? today, the old windmills are a tourist attraction. it's the same on many a mediterranean island and old windmills are being bought up and converted by property hungry mainland europeans. just what IS the fuss all about?

and one more thought re. the cost of building power stations: they might be cheaper to build, but how much does each mw of power cost to produce when calculating on the basis of building cost + cost of fuel + cost of dealing with debris (e.g. spent nuclear fuel, slag, etc). as wind is a free commodity, surely the original could be many more times the cost of other power stations and at the end of its useful life each turbine would still break even?

let's have some more renewable energy i say, wind and all.
Comment 14 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
March 31, 2005
The foundations are mono-piles driven into the sea-bed - up to 50m into sand/sediment.

Anyone who regards wind energy as pernicious needs to demonstrate that another viable energy source is less so. Furthermore they also need to apprise themselves of both the problem we face and the potential solutions.

On shore wind is cheaper to install - but getting planning permission is still tricky in the UK. There is resentment over the intrusion of turbines on the landscape - mostly by people who don't understand the scale of the problem we face both in the UK and globally. The point on load factors at sea being higher than on land is well made.

Compressed air storage is potentially an energy storage solution but requires a very substantial container and high pressures. The ones currently being used are underground caverns, for example old salt mines @ 100 bar. Any volunteers to calculate the volumes/ pressures/ containment requirements for a single wind turbine?
Comment 15 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
April 5, 2005
Check out the solar roofing shingles at www.uni-solar.com. Click the Smart Roof button. Only problem is the cost.... $105.00 per shingle. I need a new roof right now, but I can't afford a $20,000 roof.
We must stop subsidizing fossil fuels and give big rebates so individuals can get their free solar energy systems paid for before they retire! Then it won't bother them if Social Security payments don't increase. Their energy bills won't increase either. They'll have more money available to pay for their prescription drugs, if needed.
Missouri needs to pass net metering legislation so the electric companies will have to store our excess energy in the grid and give it back free at night. We need a paradym shift in our legislatures to help us get moving on renewables for the individual consumer.
Congratulations to Arnold Schwartzenneger for giving renewables a big push in California!
Comment 16 of 17
No image available
Anonymous
April 7, 2005
It started generating in June.
Comment 17 of 17
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Aries Power & Industrial Stoel Rives LLP UniRac, Inc. SunWize Technologies Magnum Energy Inc. Renewable Energy World Europe
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo