Engineers Race To Design World's Biggest Offshore Wind Turbines

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/offshore-turbine-britain

British firm to design mammoth offshore wind turbines with 275m wingspan that produce three times power of standard models

British, American and Norwegian engineers are in a race to design and build the holy grail of wind turbines – giant, 10MW offshore machines twice the size and power of anything seen before – that could transform the global energy market because of their economies of scale.

Today, a revolutionary British design that mimics a spinning sycamore leaf and which was inspired by floating oil platform technology, entered the race. Leading engineering firm Arup is to work with an academic consortium backed by blue-chip companies including Rolls Royce, Shell and BP to create detailed designs for the "Aerogenerator", a machine that rotates on its axis and would stretch nearly 275m from blade tip to tip. It is thought that the first machines will be built in 2013-14 following two years of testing.

But the all-British team of designers and engineers, which includes Eden project architects Grimshaw, is in stiff competition with other groups. Earlier this year US wind company Clipper, which has close ties with the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, announced plans to build 10MW "Britannia" turbines in north-east England.

Based on a scaled-up version of the conventional wind turbines now common in the British landscape, these giants would be fixed to the sea bed but would stand nearly 600ft high above the waves. If they prove technically and financially feasible, each turbine should be able to generate enough electricity to provide 5,000-10,000 homes and, says Clipper, should create energy equivalent to 2m barrels of oil in their 25-year lifetime.

Meanwhile, Norwegian firm Sway is planning to build massive floating turbines that would stick straight out of the sea from 100m-deep floating "masts" anchored to the sea bed. An EU-sponsored research project is also investigating 8–10MW turbines, and other American and Danish companies are planning 9MW machines. Full-scale prototyes of all three leading designs are expected to be complete within three years.

The green boom about to begin. To be honest this is only one of the ways out of this mess, but it would need to deliver results rather than the fantasy money the dot com boom was going to deliver.

[lovelyhead]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/offshore-turbine-britain

The green boom about to begin. To be honest this is only one of the ways out of this mess, but it would need to deliver results rather than the fantasy money the dot com boom was going to deliver.

I reckon that would pretty frighting to be up close to! However anything that helps us move away from our dependence on foreign oil has got to be a good thing.

[Mr. Spin esq.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/offshore-turbine-britain

The green boom about to begin. To be honest this is only one of the ways out of this mess, but it would need to deliver results rather than the fantasy money the dot com boom was going to deliver.

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

[The Masked Tulip]

With some of the strongest tidal ranges/races in the World in the UK - Northern Ireland, Anglessey, Severn River, Scottish islands have the turbo blade as a prop in the sea makes more sense. Trialing a few in Northern Ireland and Soctland are they not.

[MrFlibble]

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

Too much reality in this forum, within seconds even the daftest of plans is blown out of the water...

Edited July 26, 2010 by MrFlibble

[50sQuiff]

Too much reality in this forum, within seconds even the daftest of plans is blown out of the water...

At least some bright minds and big capital is starting to have a go..

By the time we're into the next Kondratieff cycle in 2023 or so and World War III has ended, I'm looking forward to seeing the green energy innovation boom that's going to drive our next real growth period

[Mr. Spin esq.]

At least some bright minds and big capital is starting to have a go..

By the time we're into the next Kondratieff cycle in 2023 or so and World War III has ended, I'm looking forward to seeing the green energy innovation boom that's going to drive our next real growth period

In your dreams.

Green or more correctly Dream Energy cannot propel growth. To make Dream Energy viable the cost of energy would have to increase 10 fold. This increase in energy prices will kill of any growth and propel us back 100 years. For a vision of where we would be google Amish .

[Alan B'Stard MP]

At least some bright minds and big capital is starting to have a go..

By the time we're into the next Kondratieff cycle in 2023 or so and World War III has ended, I'm looking forward to seeing the green energy innovation boom that's going to drive our next real growth period

WW III - and you expect a boom in which you will participate thereafter?

You're a trailblazer with your sarcasm.

[interestrateripoff]

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

So it appears we have a dot com style boom. Excellent.

[Mr. Spin esq.]

So it appears we have a dot com style boom. Excellent.

The only way to have a boom is increase energy costs 10 fold or keep energy costs the same and increase taxes to pay from Dream Energy.

Either way the economy will collapse first and we'll go "amish". Unless you live in densly populated cites, then you'll be going "mad max".

[corevalue]

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

What on earth are those numbers supposed to represent?

10MW turbines at say 30% load factor, 72 MW-hours per day, 657,000 MWH over 25 years. That's 7.2 kWh per day to their assumed 10,000 houses - about right. Let's price electricity at 0.05 UKP per kWH, maybe generous today, but will come soon enough, and this is WAY below what the government will pay for private "alternative energy", which is, about 0.267 UKP for domestic wind power now?

Crunching those numbers gives a break-even cost of £328 million pounds per turbine.

And pray tell us, why do you think a 25 year lifetime "laughable"? How long do : civil aircraft, alternators, North Sea oil rigs last? And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each? Current off-shore vertical axis turbines have a capital cost of Euro 2,200 per kW, this design looks simpler (no stressed tower) so probably comes in way cheaper.

[50sQuiff]

WW III - and you expect a boom in which you will participate thereafter?

You're a trailblazer with your sarcasm.

Wasn't there a bit of economic growth after the last one ended? Somewhere between 1943 and 2007 if I remember correctly. Some people even survived to see it!

Seriously though, major conflict tends to fall at the end of the 'Winter' period leading into early 'Spring', according to observers of the Kondratieff cycle. With Winter's end comes the final completion of deflation, a new inflationary cycle driven by commodity prices, new demographic trends and innovation.

It's also said that this is the period when technological advances from the Winter cycle finally bear fruit for the wider population. I can see this green tech starting to really work, come 2020ish. OK, that's enough optimism for today - clearly too much for some to handle.

Edited July 26, 2010 by 50sQuiff

[Mr. Spin esq.]

What on earth are those numbers supposed to represent?

10MW turbines at say 30% load factor, 72 MW-hours per day, 657,000 MWH over 25 years. That's 7.2 kWh per day to their assumed 10,000 houses - about right. Let's price electricity at 0.05 UKP per kWH, maybe generous today, but will come soon enough, and this is WAY below what the government will pay for private "alternative energy", which is, about 0.267 UKP for domestic wind power now?

Crunching those numbers gives a break-even cost of £328 million pounds per turbine.

And pray tell us, why do you think a 25 year lifetime "laughable"? How long do : civil aircraft, alternators, North Sea oil rigs last? And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each? Current off-shore vertical axis turbines have a capital cost of Euro 2,200 per kW, this design looks simpler (no stressed tower) so probably comes in way cheaper.

Keep it simple and don't try and confuse:

10,000 households at 400/ year bills = 4M (The 10K number is their MOST OPTIMISTIC NUMBER)

4M per year X 25 years (Their MOST OPTIMISTIC NUMBERS) = 100M

For this to be viable the break-even cost over 25 years is 100M

The whole Dream Energy fallacy is based on increasing energy costs 10 fold - which results in going Amish or Mad Max.

[kilroy]

What on earth are those numbers supposed to represent?

10MW turbines at say 30% load factor, 72 MW-hours per day, 657,000 MWH over 25 years. That's 7.2 kWh per day to their assumed 10,000 houses - about right. Let's price electricity at 0.05 UKP per kWH, maybe generous today, but will come soon enough, and this is WAY below what the government will pay for private "alternative energy", which is, about 0.267 UKP for domestic wind power now?

Crunching those numbers gives a break-even cost of £328 million pounds per turbine.

And pray tell us, why do you think a 25 year lifetime "laughable"? How long do : civil aircraft, alternators, North Sea oil rigs last? And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each? Current off-shore vertical axis turbines have a capital cost of Euro 2,200 per kW, this design looks simpler (no stressed tower) so probably comes in way cheaper.

Did you mean horizontal axis, as opposed to vertical? Plus you have the bearing wear on vertical axis, unless you can get really powerful maglevs.

Edited July 26, 2010 by kilroy

[Mr. Spin esq.]

[>>>>>snip..

And pray tell us, why do you think a 25 year lifetime "laughable"? How long do : civil aircraft, alternators, North Sea oil rigs last? And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each? Current off-shore vertical axis turbines have a capital cost of Euro 2,200 per kW, this design looks simpler (no stressed tower) so probably comes in way cheaper.

>>>>>

Start thinking in the real world not the dreamed up version you are fed by the media.

The cost to keep a rig afloat for 25 years or a civil plane in the air for 25 years ends up being more than five times the original purchase price. These costs escalate in time.

Your Dream windmill in the sea will NEVER EVER PAY for itself. A good portion of the energy produced will be required to keep this albatross going.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Mr. Spin esq.

[DeepLurker]

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

King Stromba?

[john_coller]

[>>>>>snip..

And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each?

>>>>>

$100 million looks expensive guess of cost, especially when they say it will be much cheaper due to economies of scale.

Example

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/10/third-planet-windpower-to-use-ge-energys-1-5-mw-wind-turbines-for-2009-projects-50349

$350 million to supply 167 of its 1.5-megawatt wind turbines. Which is 251 megawatts for $350 million.

Looks like they would need to be built for less than $14 million to be competitive with other turbines.

Also after 25 years wouldn't it be possible to refurbish these turbines; e.g. new shell / new bearings?

[Lepista]

$100 million looks expensive guess of cost, especially when they say it will be much cheaper due to economies of scale.

Example

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/10/third-planet-windpower-to-use-ge-energys-1-5-mw-wind-turbines-for-2009-projects-50349

$350 million to supply 167 of its 1.5-megawatt wind turbines. Which is 251 megawatts for $350 million.

Looks like they would need to be built for less than $14 million to be competitive with other turbines.

Also after 25 years wouldn't it be possible to refurbish these turbines; e.g. new shell / new bearings?

Thanet project cost is estimated at £780million for 100 turbines

so that's £8m per turbine, or £2.6m per MW capacity.

[Peter Hun]

What on earth are those numbers supposed to represent?

10MW turbines at say 30% load factor, 72 MW-hours per day, 657,000 MWH over 25 years. That's 7.2 kWh per day to their assumed 10,000 houses - about right. Let's price electricity at 0.05 UKP per kWH, maybe generous today, but will come soon enough, and this is WAY below what the government will pay for private "alternative energy", which is, about 0.267 UKP for domestic wind power now?

Crunching those numbers gives a break-even cost of £328 million pounds per turbine.

And pray tell us, why do you think a 25 year lifetime "laughable"? How long do : civil aircraft, alternators, North Sea oil rigs last? And while we're at it, why do you think these turbine can't be built for £100 million each? Current off-shore vertical axis turbines have a capital cost of Euro 2,200 per kW, this design looks simpler (no stressed tower) so probably comes in way cheaper.

Don't worry, its a monkey with a keyboard.

The fact is wind power is being installed in exponentially increasing capacity already, monkeys have no effect on that. 4.6GW is already operational in the UK, 2.5GW is in construction (1.5Gw offshore) and 6.4GW has been approved for future construction (2.7GW of it offshore).

There is a massive worldwide construction boom in wind power, China added 13GW last year, doubling their capacity. Spain currently has 19GW, Germany 25GW.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Peter Hun

[kagiso]

I reckon the Guardian must be on backhanders from somebody on this one,

here was their report from Jan 2008:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/29/wind.energy.aerogenerator

this one from February this year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/22/aerogenerator-wind-turbine

not bad for a venture that hasn't even got round to building a website yet; maybe they spent all their money on the pretty photoshopped pictures.

The rotor proposed is a modified version of a Darrieus rotor.

Unfortunately all Darrieus rotors to date have been very small because the forces on the blades vary enormously through each rotation, inducing huge cyclical stresses in the materials it is built of, not to mention destroying the generator.

Arups are very good civil engineers, but you really don't want to let them anywhere near M&E.

If they can't work out the resonant frequencies in piddling little footbridge, what chance do you think they have designing something of this size and complexity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge_%28London%29

Millennium Bridge (London)

The design of the bridge was the subject of a competition organized in 1996 by Southwark council. The winning entry was an innovative "blade of light" effort from Arup, Foster and Partners and Sir Anthony Caro......

....The bridge's movements were caused by a 'positive feedback' phenomenon, known as Synchronous Lateral Excitation. The natural sway motion of people walking caused small sideways oscillations in the bridge, which in turn caused people on the bridge to sway in step, increasing the amplitude of the bridge oscillations and continually reinforcing the effect.[3]

The bridge opened on an exceptionally fine day, and it was included on the route of a major charity walk. On the day of opening the bridge was crossed by 90,000 people, with up to 2,000 on the bridge at any one time.

Resonant vibrational modes due to vertical loads (such as trains, traffic, pedestrians) and wind loads are well understood in bridge design. In the case of the Millennium Bridge, because the lateral motion caused the pedestrians loading the bridge to directly participate with the bridge, the vibrational modes had not been anticipated by the designers.

The lateral vibration problems of the Millennium Bridge are very unusual, but not entirely unique.[4] Any bridge with lateral frequency modes of less than 1.3 Hz, and sufficiently low mass, could witness the same phenomenon with sufficient pedestrian loading. The greater the number of people, the greater the amplitude of the vibrations. Other bridges which have seen similar problems are:

* Birmingham NEC Link bridge, with a lateral frequency of 0.7 Hz

* Groves Suspension Bridge, Chester, in 1977 during the Jubilee River Regatta

* Auckland Harbour Road Bridge, with a lateral frequency of 0.67 Hz, during a 1975 demonstration[5]

Note that Arups failed to take into account the problems at previous bridge sites.

They really aren't good at things that can move.

This is a complete non-starter, being driven by an optimistic loon, who happens to have a friend in the Guardian.

[tomwatkins]

Keep it simple and don't try and confuse:

10,000 households at 400/ year bills = 4M (The 10K number is their MOST OPTIMISTIC NUMBER)

4M per year X 25 years (Their MOST OPTIMISTIC NUMBERS) = 100M

For this to be viable the break-even cost over 25 years is 100M

The whole Dream Energy fallacy is based on increasing energy costs 10 fold - which results in going Amish or Mad Max.

I would say it's worse than that unfortunately. Say cost of capital is 5%-amortize 100m over 25 years at 5% (assuming no maintainence costs either). Far higher than 4m per year. I haven't got my Perrys tables to hand and can't be arsed with the online calculator but you get my drift-the figures don't add up. Way too high.

[corevalue]

Did you mean horizontal axis, as opposed to vertical? Plus you have the bearing wear on vertical axis, unless you can get really powerful maglevs.

I did. My bad.

There shouldn't be any problem with bearing wear, anyway, such items are replaced as the need arises. The wing probably isn't that heavy, and the rotational speed is low, and there wouldn't be much side thrust from drag. What it does seem to eliminate is the blade shielding which gives rise to tower vibration, which can be a real headache.

[Mr. Spin esq.]

Don't worry, its a monkey with a keyboard.

The fact is wind power is being installed in exponentially increasing capacity already, monkeys have no effect on that. 4.6GW is already operational in the UK, 2.5GW is in construction (1.5Gw offshore) and 6.4GW has been approved for future construction (2.7GW of it offshore).

There is a massive worldwide construction boom in wind power, China added 13GW last year, doubling their capacity. Spain currently has 19GW, Germany 25GW.

So what.

Who's funding these albatrosses? It wouldn't happen to be the same shills that bought the CDOs based on the previous bubble - property.

I hope the idiots like yourself do buy into this crap and buy up all the Dream Energy stocks. I will look forward to shorting them to zero where they belong.

[Peter Hun]

So what.

Who's funding these albatrosses? It wouldn't happen to be the same shills that bought the CDOs based on the previous bubble - property.

I hope the idiots like yourself do buy into this crap and buy up all the Dream Energy stocks. I will look forward to shorting them to zero where they belong.

Who cares?

They are being built by by mainly foreign companies who will sell the electricity at a profit to UK consumers. Its not of any consequence, if you want electricity in the UK you will buy 20% or so from wind generators.

I would say it's worse than that unfortunately. Say cost of capital is 5%-amortize 100m over 25 years at 5% (assuming no maintainence costs either). Far higher than 4m per year. I haven't got my Perrys tables to hand and can't be arsed with the online calculator but you get my drift-the figures don't add up. Way too high

You have got the figures mixed up.

The turbines will return at least £100 million over 25years and cost around £8million to build, so they are profitable.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Peter Hun

[Abstra]

More pie in the sky rubbish.

Take the most optimistic numbers: 10,000 X 400 = 4M

4M X 25 = 100M

Good luck designing, building, installing, maintaining this albatros in the middle of the sea for 100M.

Electric bills would have to increase 10 fold for this to be even remotely viable.

Also, the 25 year lifespan is laughable.

2 million barrels of oil over its lifetime. Blinding! Well thats the end of fossil fuels then.