Email This Story
Share This Story
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
15 Comments
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.
Add Your Comment
15 Reader Comments
Comment
2 of 15 |
September 1, 2006
So while GE works with the Department of Energy to create 5-7MW turbines by 2009:
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16801&ch=biztech Meanwhile... the Danish (population 5.5 million) are already installing them. Meanwhile Republicans claim that global warming isn't happening & so they continue to invest into new coal plants! And meanwhile, the US makes plans to go to Mars & the moon again. (another way to look at this... a big military contractor is making alot of money) such is the state of affairs in the US, 2006. |
|
Comment
3 of 15 |
September 1, 2006
When I see huge wind turbines like this, I wonder why not include wave motion energy tech in the turbines base and have two sources of energy to supplement each other. Does anyone know if anyone is trying to do this? What would be the advantages and disadvantages for trying both wind power and wave motion power at the same facility?
|
|
Comment
4 of 15 |
September 4, 2006
There is NO need for more Federal money being thrown at wind power. The problem is not any lack of technology - wind turbines just aren't going to get much more efficient than they alrady are. The big problem with wind in its variability. That's the problem that needs to be solved.
Wave motions can only be tapped where they exist in commercially profitable areas. There is no reason to assume those areas will correspond to good offshore wind sites. If electricity generating wave motion buoys are envisioned, the only thing they would benefit from is the ability to share common cabling with the turbine running to shore. They would gain absolutely nothing else from being close to a wind turbine platform. If you think so, then you aren't up to speed on how a wave motion buoy works. If water pumping buoys are used , which are the best types, then NO sharing of anything would be possible. |
|
Comment
5 of 15 |
September 4, 2006
"GE has announced a $27 million partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop 5-7 megawatt turbines by 2009"
in all he says. The US seems retarded when compared to what other countries are doing and our leaders seem to be blind as to the real need to act. Where is the supportive legislation? " The biggest problem with wind power expansion are the local opponents that are blocking construction just about everywhere. Even if we had a 5MW turbine, there's no place it could be sited . Ain't no politician going to favor any law that blocks locals from control of wind farms. That's what's required, not more vast sums of money, ( the Democrats choice to show they're "on top of the situation." ) which invariably support the wrong kind of alternative energy. Govt officials are the last ones that should be controlling new technologies. Look at the ethanol nonsense. Money down the drain. |
|
Comment
6 of 15 |
September 5, 2006
I could not agree with Kerry Beauchrt.
"It is worth noting that wind power has received 0.03% of all IEA government energy research expenditures since 1974, while nuclear power received 60%, or $175 billion, in the same period, according to the International Energy Agency." taken from EWEA site. How can you talk about we cannot waste anymore funds to wind power research when we are wasting so much more into nuclear? Nuclear fuel is finite too. It will peak too. Trubines can get more efficient and bigger. New materials can be inveted ect. There is aways ways to improve things. |
|
Comment
7 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
Scott, "technical efficiency" is what I was referring to. One of the largest problems facing renenwable energy generation technologies like PV for example is the low technical efficiency i.e. the low conversion factor of photons into electrons. With wind, technical efficiency is better than most thermal power plants. Economic efficiency is also getting better as new technological advances are changing the construction of turbines to reduce raw materials in the nacelle, tower and foundation. Offshore wind is not as cost competative as on land based wind construction, but the ability to share transmission lines, the combination of different technologies such as wave, tidal and wind within the same vicinity, as well as the reduced legal fees with regards to NIMBYs are all good economic factors aiding in the future expansion of these offshore technologies.
|
|
Comment
8 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
I didn't realize until I got to Philip Livingston's comment that, as a business person, my definition of efficiency is net cost per kW (vs. the cost of other alternatives at given times). To decision makers "improving the economics" IS increasing efficiency, so for the purposes of expanding the use of RE that is pretty well the only measure of efficiency that matters (which is not to deny that other factors than efficiency matter). With that in mind, aren't the ability to share transmission lines and reduce output variability (somewhat) important advantages?
|
|
Comment
9 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
I am happy to observe some interesting and mature comments, from advocates of renewable energy. I find it rather amusing that nobody even considered a reverse relation of wind and wave -that is a wave energy site that could host a wind conversion tandem! Although several of the questions posed, have been already resolved, no one seems to ask how really effective and sustainable all this 5MW affair is. Perhaps the official answer comes from the 0.03% spending on wind tech. Perhaps, some alternative thoughts at: http://www.daedalus.gr/DAEI/PRODUCTS/RET/General/RETWW7.html
|
|
Comment
10 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
Wind might be variable means of power supply, but by upgrading our transmission infrastructure, wind (as distributed generation) is far less variable. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
When combining wind with pumped storage, or plug in hybrid V2G technology, the variability of wind is also further reduced. |
|
Comment
11 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
Turbines can get bigger, but efficiency of large wind systems has somewhat peaked. Sure there are transmission improvements which aid in providing single percentage points of improved efficiency (Clipper Wind is a good example), but elephant sized efficiency gains are no longer possible in large wind. Currently, manufacturers are trying to improve the economics of large wind rather than boosting overall efficiency.
The argument that "there is always ways to improve things," might be true to some degree, but the nuclear lobby as well as coal and oil have been preaching this mantra for decades. In reality, oil is near peak, thermal coal combustion is running at similar levels to the 1970's, and nuclear's fast breeder reactors which were hailed by the NEM as the answer to all of the nuclear waste and fuel issues, has failed to date. |
|
Comment
12 of 15 |
September 6, 2006
Remember Kerry that wave parameters are a function of wind speed at any given site. Where there is wind, there should also be commercially available wave resources as well.
The combination of wind and wave might not be possible on an offshore setup (except for cable bundling), but what is possible and is currently being tested is the combination of wind and tidal generation. Of course a commercially viable location where both wind and tidal resoruces would have to be sited, but using the same infrastructure for both generation technologies will aid in improving the economics of both of these technologies. |
|
Comment
13 of 15 |
September 8, 2006
Ultimate renewable is still space solar satellites --full plant capacity is available 24-7. Expensive for the first few, but look at cost -performance curves vs. time for electronics and PC's.
Problem is lack of leadership. Can anyone get Bill Gates behind the idea? Finance with public bonds--a la 1st transcontinental railroad. We put a man on the moon, starting from bottle rockets, in less than 10 years. Using slide rules. SPS should be no problem, cuz no breakthru technology is required. At least the Japanese are working on R&D and have planned to put up a demo in 10 years. |
|
Comment
14 of 15 |
September 8, 2006
None of the comments so far have remarked on Japanese experience with wave generation prototypes which demonstrated that the surface was significantly calmer in the lee of the wave energy converters. I would expect this effect to be a worthwhile gain.
|
|
Comment
15 of 15 |
September 9, 2006
...as I remarked in my previous postings, I consider that the major benefit for the actual establishment of the Renewable Energy momentum, will be -eventually- the rising of public awareness. Otherwise it is difficult to realize that field progress -as we conceive it, is mostly a game based on "business as usual". You can't take that model to the 21st century, and, neither space or science fiction will help. Comments like posting 13, indicate the rising public concern for detail -the ultimate hope of thruth; there are many side benefits for wave energy, they should be part of a sustainable, multi-benefit design...but you can't expect me to include such details here! However, since such an unexpected interest is expressed, perhaps by many more readers, I feel I shoud reference the report http://www.daedalus.gr/PUBLICTN/DAEDALUS-EnergyOcean2004.PDF, produced for the first Ocean Energy focused event in USA,
Florida, 2004 |
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!
View image gallery (1)
Previous Article
1 of 15
I have also to sadly agree with Matt
"GE has announced a $27 million partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop 5-7 megawatt turbines by 2009"
in all he says. The US seems retarded when compared to what other countries are doing and our leaders seem to be blind as to the real need to act. Where is the supportive legislation?
adrianakau@aol.com