Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Floating Wind Turbines the Wave of the Future

By Nancy Stauffer, Contributing Writer
September 21, 2006   |   24 Comments
MIT designs 5 MW wind turbines that can be moored 100 miles offshore.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Since the wind turbines are not permanently attached to the ocean floor, they are a movable asset. If a company with 400 wind turbines serving the Boston area needs more power for New York City, it can unhook some of the floating turbines and tow them south.
24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
September 21, 2006
I'm totally into this idea too. Wind maps show that there is increadibly good wind right off shore from our major population areas like LA & NYC.

Perhaps their could be an offshore "grid", bringing power into the coast only so often as to make it economic.

Sort of depresses me though that it seems our efforts & Europe's efforts are totally separate.

Here, at MIT, a 5MW is "experimental"

Meanwhile, in Europe, they are installing 5MW off the coast of Scotland, into a wind farm.

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

I wonder how long it will take for nations to realize that the only way to beat global warming is to work together?

Matt
Comment
2 of 24
September 21, 2006
It is an excellent idea. An underwater cable to bring in power would have to be set in place.

Perhaps underwater turbines might also be used as part of the ballast if the platform could be stationed where there are both strong winds as well as ocean currents such as the Gulf current.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
3 of 24
September 22, 2006
Indeed, not a new idea- OWECO Ocean Wave Energy Company started with offshore and deep ocean floating wind turbines but quickly abandoned such notions in favor of ocean wave energy conversion. Ocean wind turbine support structures require that unit blade clearance is sufficient height above highest waves thereby adding considerable cost of indirect functions.
Comment
4 of 24
September 22, 2006
This is not a new idea.
In the mid-1970's Prof. Heronemus at UMass/Amherst developed the idea of floating off-shore wind turbines. I was one of many grad students that worked on this design. There is a famous cover page of Popular Mechanics from this time showing a tri-turbine floating buoy of Heronemus' design. Kudos for MIT for continuing this work.
Comment
5 of 24
September 22, 2006
I think it is disingenuous of the author not to have addressed thue huge issue of transmission costs and losses at that distance. That's part of the trouble with this kind of self-promoting article. It's really a press release in disguise and needs to have a real reporter do the real story.
Comment
6 of 24
September 22, 2006
I agree with the underwater cable issue, which hopefully will be explained the next time MIT releases more information on their floating turbine design.

I'm also a little skeptical about the statement regarding the turbines being able to withstand hurricane conditions. Does anyone know of any wind farms or turbines in hurricane prone areas? I would think that land based turbines would be designed for hurricane conditions before the larger, more experimental, offshore units - unless the floating turbines provide some damping to reduce the stress on the turbines from the high winds and waves?
Comment
7 of 24
September 22, 2006
That is a problem, cable losses at that distance. You could also use them to generate hydrogen using sea water. Pipeline it back to shore or use tankers or blimps.
Comment
8 of 24
September 22, 2006
How big a challenge is it to get the generated power to shore? Adrian mentioned an underwater cable (above). Is this relatively easy to accomplish?
Comment
9 of 24
September 22, 2006
I'm a UK resident, I agree with Matt Pease above, we should be working together.. but like most things, private companies are ripping off the concept, with enormous margins that put people off investing... GBP700k ($1.3m) for a ONE megawatt wind turbine!!, or GBP550k ($1m) for a second hand one here in the UK. I am personally installing a Provenenergy WT15000 for my own use and selling back the excess.. but that still costs GBP34k ($65k) plus taxes! (and thats AFTER the grant refund of GBP5k ($9k)
Comment
10 of 24
September 22, 2006
It is good to see US putting energy into renewable innovations. In Norway there are two firms with exceptional interesting technologies; SWAY and NorskHydro. See www.sway.no and www.hydro.com/en/press_room/news/archive/2005_11/hywind_en.html

Are there any of you guys who know of others who develop the concept of floating wind turbines?
Comment
11 of 24
September 23, 2006
The loss of power through distance would not be that great. 150 km to shore is much less than from my house to the nearest power plant. An underwater cable is not much of a problem either. I work on a ship that lays transocean fiberoptic cable. We drag a plow which digs a 6 ft trench to bury the cable in waters shallower than 400 meters or so - depending on the fishing traffic and contract specs.
East of Cape Cod, MA there are banks where the water is only 20-30 ft or less and out of sight of land. Why aren't these being used now?
Comment
12 of 24
September 23, 2006
FLOATING SOLAR CHIMNEY

Australia is building 250 mw plant using Solar Chimney to be installed on land.
Here Solar Energy develops wind which generates power.

Further extension of this concept leads to totally new concept of Floating Solar Chimney.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com
Comment
13 of 24
September 24, 2006
There certainly are many benefits to be had in using floating turbines far out to sea not least to satisfy those who don't want them in their own back yard!
But here at Eurowind Developments ltd we feel that the full potential of such a system would realised with the deployment of large vertical axis machines in the 10 MW class
Comment
14 of 24
September 25, 2006
The technological idea seems developable given enough ongoing effort. What would be the best approaches for limiting risk of grid disruption from intentional sabotoge of either multiple generation units or the prime transmission cables, given the distance from the public which is also a key benefit?
Comment
15 of 24
September 26, 2006
Am I the only one who wonders about some of the people who routinely right half-baked criticisms of every promising technology? Are they just congenital cynics or are they only on this site to attempt to discredit all progress in the area of RE? This idea may still require further testing and development, but it is hard to understand why anyone would trash it. And, even if transmission distances were a major issue, which they don't appear to be, any technology that works 200 kms from shore will also work in deep water a few kilometres from shore and anywhere in between.
Comment
16 of 24
September 27, 2006
Kudos to Mike Edds (~Hi from Germany) for reminding us of the Heronemus vision of floating Wind Ships to produce various forms of hydrogen or electricity. There are also several versions of floating wind turbine structures developed both publically and privately in Europe. But it remains the most important task of the wind industry to upgrade performance of existing turbines.
Comment
17 of 24
September 28, 2006
There are penlty of platforms in the Gulf Of Mexico that could be used for this. The floating tower would prove to be maintance issue getting a crane to service the unit only in favorable weather. I am glade to see people looking into this. This not new and some of the oil company have and are looking into this with their abandanded plateforms.
Comment
18 of 24
September 28, 2006
If wind power is to become main stream, it needs to be able to compete with conventional generation on cost. To do this the superior recourses of off-shore wind need to be harnessed, but before we can do that economically, we need more reliable and cost effective machines. The only way to achieved this is to move away from the traditional propeller on a stick, turning a generator via a gearbox. We need large, simple, directly driven generators that would require minimal maintenance. We should be looking at machines of 10 MW or more with as few moving parts as possible. The distance off-shore is irrelevant as long as the cost can be absorbed within the installation. If machines can be installed simply on these floating foundations in dry dock and then towed out to position it would substantially reduce both the time and cost. In a large wind farm this saving would more than cover the extra cost of long distance connections.
Comment
19 of 24
November 15, 2006
Very cool idea, but I also think more information needs to be presented about the feasibility of transmitting the power to shore. Won't AC through seawater lead to massive induction losses? What is the effect on cost and complexity of converting to HVDC?
Any electrical engineers who could advise? Also, won't there be problems with accelerated corrosion of the supporting cables caused by the electric field of the transmission line, increasing maintenance cost?
Comment
20 of 24
June 18, 2007
<p>The idea is not new but many of the detail solution may prove better than previous designs.</p><p>Matt comment 2 totally misses the point about the wind energy cluster. It is a totally global cluster originating out of Denmark which remain the centre hub. Everybody in the business is either Danes or educated in companies founded by&nbsp;Danes. Every year any company in the business has to become 5% cheaper than last year or&nbsp;face the imminent threat of becoming obsolete. It is so strange to hear an American to plead for less competition&nbsp;as a way to fuel innovation. </p><p>To Julian comment 3 there are no such thing as huge margins in the wind industry. Every dime earned and more is put right back in research and the research funding for wind energy is terribly low compared to the funding that goes to fossil and nuclear energy. The industry was pioneered by idealist 35 years ago and the first&nbsp;modern windmill is still working see <a href="http://www.tvindkraft.dk/default.asp" target="_blank">http://www.tvindkraft.dk/default.asp</a></p><p>Unlike what many of the comments speculate in there are no technical challenges related to have a cable at 150m instead of 15m and the coastal areas around Denmark have had windfarms now for two decades - it is solved.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
21 of 24
December 4, 2007
Im Saxon and im a sophmore at a highschool in Harvard Illinois i found this sight while typin a research paper on wind power and energy and i really think what u guys are doing is cool but i was wondering how much electrical cable do you use for all the wind turbines?
Comment
22 of 24
June 13, 2009
All the subtypes of solar chimneys and energy towers are described on http://www.solar-tower.org.uk/ and the whole family is called "Meteorological Reactors":
UPDRAFT
Solar Chimney - Schlaich
Flotting - Papageorgiou
Tropical - Bonnelle
Polar - Bonnelle
Flying- Sorensen
Mountainside Chimney - Menard
Greentower - Stellenbosch South Africa 1.5km high
Super Cheminée - Pesochinsky 5km high

DOWNDRAFT
Energy Tower – Zaslavsky - Guetta

MIXED
Bi-Directionnal - Rohatensky
Solar Nozzle - Williams

VORTEX
Vortex Michaud - Monrad
Vortex Nazare - Maugis-Sumatel
Self producing Chimney - Coustou-Alary
Vortex Mamulashvili

Other variants of Meteorological Reactors
James Bowery associated to algae biodiesel production
Tom Bosschaert for power co-generation
Tom Bosschaert in urban and city areas
Patrick Nicolas self standing
Solar Pyramid - MSC Power Corp
Nazar Hassen Solar Minaret
and many others... on http://www.solar-tower.org.uk/
Comment
23 of 24
I, as one of the veterans of the direction of the vortex energy sources, through your site I declare an official protest against the domination of our scientific community fraudsters think they hang on the tower to the moon and thus mankind will receive electrical energy. Enough advertising the stupidity. It brings great harm to the common cause and makes you think a normal government of a handful of speculators who had gathered just to hold a major scam to steal money. For example, the so-called "Russian project Super Chimney", in which power of all long been known air thermal power plant is achieved only at the height of the towers at 5 kilometers, is nothing but a thief bait "scientific" officials for wasting public money without any control in Russia, where huge financial chaos and corruption in the huge range. I am ashamed that such a good idea of how your site, which could serve to actually develop the science of meteorological reactors, where the glory of God did not forget to mention me, suddenly, all the time prints the beginning of any project is of enormous size and cost, which then never implemented. May be no need to interfere with others to implement in fact the real scientific ideas, even of honesty, not toadying to the so-called crooks-scientists?
Comment
24 of 24
May 2, 2011
First, to those comments concerning the cost of transmission:

Transmission over distance is based far more on the size of the cable than anything else. If this were DC transmission over 100 miles and the cable laid were copper-cored aluminum ~4" thick, then we're talking about a total loss of ~5% (estimate/guess, not calculation).

However, because you're just talking about trolling a plow and spooling off the cable, the actual cost of installing the transmission is FAR FAR FAR less than what would be required to build out 100 miles of high capacity transmission on land. (knowledge, not guess). This is due to the fact that you won't have to negotiate with a new land owner for easement rights every few hundred feet.

So it's foolish to worry about the transmission losses. The total cost of transmission, in combined capital and line losses, over the next hundred years would be a small fraction of what would be needed for building out land based transmission.


What you SHOULD be worried about is the $/W installed cost for these systems. I'm guessing the systems would have to worry about the torque of the wind blowing them over, so they'd have to be designed to collect a much smaller fraction of the wind at any given hub height then an optimal land-based system would be able to collect, implying a MUCH higher $/W installed price even before the flotation systems are factored in.


Also, I'd like to point out that any system that is connected to a grid cannot be moved without completely wasting the money spent installing the transmission lines. It would be cheaper to lose another few percent of the power in line losses transmitting the power then it would be to tow the floating systems, re-anchor them, and then lay new transmission lines to accommodate them. The author is a complete fool for not recognizing this.
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

Advertise With Us

AWS Truepower, LLC HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group SolarNexus Concepts NREC Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Solar Energy International (SEI)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters