Scotland’s floating wind farm is showing how powerful offshore wind can be(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Scotland’s floating wind farm is showing how powerful offshore wind can be
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/first-floating-wind-farm-has-performed-better-than-expected/
104 comments
I think it's already part of proposal [1] to generate a healthy chunk of the power required for the six North Sea countries. The video [2] is pretty interesting.
[1] https://iabr.nl/en/projectatelier/Atelier2050
[2] https://vimeo.com/199825983
[1] https://iabr.nl/en/projectatelier/Atelier2050
[2] https://vimeo.com/199825983
Not a usable launch site; it's too far from the equator to reach the most common orbits, and for polar orbits, it'd be dropping boosters either in Europe (unsafe) or the arctic (hard to recover).
> sending 30MW of power to the grid every minute of every day
One of those little inconsistencies that stood out to me...
Scratches head MW = 1000J / s
What happens when you send 30MW per minute..
30MW per minute = 1000J / s / m
Hmmm
One of those little inconsistencies that stood out to me...
Scratches head MW = 1000J / s
What happens when you send 30MW per minute..
30MW per minute = 1000J / s / m
Hmmm
No head scratcher there.
They didn't write it in the sense of "30MW per minute", it was "30MW every minute" meaning a constant power rating of 30MW, instead of a variable rating where one minute it's 30MW and the next minute it's at 20MW, or whatever.
They didn't write it in the sense of "30MW per minute", it was "30MW every minute" meaning a constant power rating of 30MW, instead of a variable rating where one minute it's 30MW and the next minute it's at 20MW, or whatever.
From the language of the article it's somewhat ambiguous.
"A capacity factor of 100 percent means the wind farm would be sending 30MW of power to the grid every minute of every day since it's been in operation."
The "sending" portion makes me interpret this in the sense of 30MW per minute.
"A capacity factor of 100 percent means the wind farm would be sending 30MW of power to the grid every minute of every day since it's been in operation."
The "sending" portion makes me interpret this in the sense of 30MW per minute.
It's badly worded, but most people should get the meaning in context of talking about capacity factor.
"Every minute of every day" is just a common English expression to mean "all the time." The word "minute" in there isn't significant and doesn't factor in the calculation, it's just for emphasis.
So really all the author means is "producing 30MW consistently for the whole time it's been in operation." Or if they did use minutes as a time slice in the capacity calculation, it would have to be "averaging 30MW during every minute of every day".
"Every minute of every day" is just a common English expression to mean "all the time." The word "minute" in there isn't significant and doesn't factor in the calculation, it's just for emphasis.
So really all the author means is "producing 30MW consistently for the whole time it's been in operation." Or if they did use minutes as a time slice in the capacity calculation, it would have to be "averaging 30MW during every minute of every day".
Most renewable energy sources are variable, meaning they have a capacity/load factor that is less than 100% - you would never mention the load factor of a natural gas power plant because it's essentially a turnkey solution that doesn't fluctuate. Renewable energy is different, and it's good that this issue is mentioned in articles so that it's acknowledged as being a challenge. I don't think it's ambiguous in any way
> ... you would never mention the load factor of a natural gas power plant because it's essentially a turnkey solution that doesn't fluctuate.
As I understood the term the capacity factor is the percentage of time the plant is generating power. All plants have periods of maintenance and other "down times" which means they don't achieve 100% capacity. I would expect to use that number like this:
Given a 30MW plant with a 50% capacity factor measured for the year, I would consider it to provide 30MW x 180 x 24 or 129,600 MWh of generating capacity. Two plants with a 50% capacity factor would give you coverage at their rated power all year only if they never overlapped in their down time. So if I was working the issue operationally I'd put in three plants to insure I had 100% coverage of 30MW all year long.
As I understood the term the capacity factor is the percentage of time the plant is generating power. All plants have periods of maintenance and other "down times" which means they don't achieve 100% capacity. I would expect to use that number like this:
Given a 30MW plant with a 50% capacity factor measured for the year, I would consider it to provide 30MW x 180 x 24 or 129,600 MWh of generating capacity. Two plants with a 50% capacity factor would give you coverage at their rated power all year only if they never overlapped in their down time. So if I was working the issue operationally I'd put in three plants to insure I had 100% coverage of 30MW all year long.
Maintenance does incur planned downtime on a power plant, but those things can be planned for when there isn't much energy usage throughout the year. In colder climates that's usually in the spring/summer. If a plant goes out for two weeks every year for maintenance, that's not a big problem. A wind farm on the other hand has a much lower load factor (UK offshore is around 30% [0]), and that load capacity isn't planned at all. You might get 30% on average per year, but that daily capacity fluctuates throughout the year - that's what I mean about fluctuating capacity.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-o...
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-o...
When there's a potential ambiguity and one meaning is sensical and the other nonsensical, that's not actually an ambiguity.
Saying that this is ambiguous is paramount to making the assumption that the author does not know the difference, and then trying to twist the meanings to prove your point. That's unnecessarily tendentious.
Saying that this is ambiguous is paramount to making the assumption that the author does not know the difference, and then trying to twist the meanings to prove your point. That's unnecessarily tendentious.
Precision of language is important.
"Abandon all dimensional consistency ye who read on" should top every newspaper, magazine and blog. Failing to grasp or properly communicate meaningful scientific units seems to be a constant problem in the media I read, particularly around units of energy vs power. It's one of my pet peeves.
so write a blog. I'd love to be schooled on when to use MW, MWh, KJ.
Probably they mean megawatt hours. Which is a common unit of energy in the industry. Then adding per minute makes sense.
[deleted]
Just a note that research into the effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds is still needed to minimise their environmental impact. Here's an article that looks at it[1].
[1] "As Offshore Wind Power Picks Up, Do Seabirds Need to Suffer?" https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/as-offshore-wind-power-pi...
[1] "As Offshore Wind Power Picks Up, Do Seabirds Need to Suffer?" https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/as-offshore-wind-power-pi...
How steady is the electricity production of a windfarm? I would assume that it would be subject to bursts, with the production being quite volatile over an hour. If that's the case isn't it a problem for the grid given that the demand isn't bursty?
Yes and no...
Having many producers, connected by the grid, smooths out any fluctuations on the “minute” timescale. There’s also some smoothing because solar and wind tend to peak at different times of the day.
Batteries have also improved dramatically, and there are “smart grid” efforts that could help, such as running some consumers during times of peak production (refrigerator compressors, aluminum smelters), or using grid-connected batteries, such as charging cars.
The storage problem is imminently solvable and, with the improvements in solar efficiency, renewables are certain to become cost leaders rather soon. In fact they may already have.
Having many producers, connected by the grid, smooths out any fluctuations on the “minute” timescale. There’s also some smoothing because solar and wind tend to peak at different times of the day.
Batteries have also improved dramatically, and there are “smart grid” efforts that could help, such as running some consumers during times of peak production (refrigerator compressors, aluminum smelters), or using grid-connected batteries, such as charging cars.
The storage problem is imminently solvable and, with the improvements in solar efficiency, renewables are certain to become cost leaders rather soon. In fact they may already have.
[deleted]
Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. Theoretical maximum for 100% perfect weather on equator is 29%. I doubt it crosses 22-23% anywhere in the world and definitely no more than 15-16% U.S. average.
A couple of actual numbers:
* For example, Agua Caliente Solar Project, located in Arizona near the 33rd parallel and awarded for its excellence in renewable energy has a nameplate capacity of 290 MW and an actual average annual production of 740 GWh/year. Its capacity factor is thus: 29%
* A significantly lower capacity factor is achieved by Lauingen Energy Park located in Bavaria, near the 49th parallel. With a nameplate capacity of 25.7 MW and an actual average annual production of 26.98 GWh/year it has a capacity factor of 12.0%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_p...
* For example, Agua Caliente Solar Project, located in Arizona near the 33rd parallel and awarded for its excellence in renewable energy has a nameplate capacity of 290 MW and an actual average annual production of 740 GWh/year. Its capacity factor is thus: 29%
* A significantly lower capacity factor is achieved by Lauingen Energy Park located in Bavaria, near the 49th parallel. With a nameplate capacity of 25.7 MW and an actual average annual production of 26.98 GWh/year it has a capacity factor of 12.0%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_p...
[deleted]
> Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible.
I often gripe about people using the word nuclear to describe exclusively fission, which is regrettable for those of us keen on encouraging research in fusion.
The use of the word 'solar' to describe exclusively PVCs is comparably regrettable.
Solar thermal is pretty much guaranteed to trump PVCs at the moment, albeit at a higher capex.
I often gripe about people using the word nuclear to describe exclusively fission, which is regrettable for those of us keen on encouraging research in fusion.
The use of the word 'solar' to describe exclusively PVCs is comparably regrettable.
Solar thermal is pretty much guaranteed to trump PVCs at the moment, albeit at a higher capex.
True, solar thermal using steerable mirrors, can do it.
Are you talking about capacity or capacity factor?
From the article:
> Capacity factor measures a generation unit's actual output against its theoretical maximum output.
So this would be a percentage of your theoretical maximum, never exceeding it, by definition.
From the article:
> Capacity factor measures a generation unit's actual output against its theoretical maximum output.
So this would be a percentage of your theoretical maximum, never exceeding it, by definition.
I mean that, a solar panel can't produce 27 watts on average having a 100 watts peak power. In any practical location on Earth - while somewhere in the middle of Sahara desert, it will be close to that (unless you take in account solar panel's reduced power in higher temperatures).
The denominator is based on standard test conditions. Check the link for details.
http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes...
Those conditions reflect not the theoretical maximum but an expected output in very good actual conditions.
This is relevant because it relates to the needed transmission capacity one need installed. For instance, at 30% capacity factor, you're "wasting 70%" of transmission on average.
It's a good metric to compare between sites of a same energy source but it's not very useful between sources. For that, the better metric is Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) in $/MWh. Usually present with or without subsidies.
http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes...
Those conditions reflect not the theoretical maximum but an expected output in very good actual conditions.
This is relevant because it relates to the needed transmission capacity one need installed. For instance, at 30% capacity factor, you're "wasting 70%" of transmission on average.
It's a good metric to compare between sites of a same energy source but it's not very useful between sources. For that, the better metric is Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) in $/MWh. Usually present with or without subsidies.
How is the 100 watts calculated in your example?
I would've presumed the theoretical maximum for a producing unit would be what it could theoretically actually produce in the location its placed. If it's the theoretical maximum output of a cell, then calling BS seems warranted, but it doesn't seem like that would be a useful comparator in this context.
I would've presumed the theoretical maximum for a producing unit would be what it could theoretically actually produce in the location its placed. If it's the theoretical maximum output of a cell, then calling BS seems warranted, but it doesn't seem like that would be a useful comparator in this context.
Temperature doesn't affect capacity factor by this definition, because it reduces the numerator and the denominator by the same proportion.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf discusses their methodology some. They aren't simply using nameplate capacity as the denominator.
[deleted]
You can oversize the system by installing more modules behind the inverter. Hence when you calculate the capacity factor in AC terms it is higher than in the nameplate DC terms
[deleted]
A different article puts the energy costs at: "140 pounds ($185) per megawatt-hour on top of the current wholesale power price in the UK, which is about 49 pounds ($65) per megawatt-hour"
Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
Those aren't the costs of generating the energy. They receive ~£140/MWh in government subsidies, and ~£49/MWh for wholesale supply.
Fair enough but...
1) What does Big Oil's subsidies (including special tax breaks) look like?
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
1) What does Big Oil's subsidies (including special tax breaks) look like?
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
According the University of Texas Energy Institute[1], the federal financial support in the USA for generation of energy is estimated to be (2019 numbers):
[1] /Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies/, https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_S...
Oil & Gas $0.95/MWh
Coal $1.07/MWh
Nuclear $1.74/MWh
Wind $15.15/MWh
Solar $42.51/MWh
Other RE $22.85/MWh
[1] /Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies/, https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_S...
Unfortunately these numbers omit the 3 trillion dollars spent in war in the middle east and Afghanistan, none of which would have occurred were it not for US military and covert efforts to secure oil resources in that area. Just adding in the cost of running the US 5th fleet would arguably be a good start.
Fair enough, but again...
I'm in favor of subsidies for clean energy, but I'm also in favor of calling a spade a spade.
Pretty much every subsidy nowadays has some "for the public good" narrative, some more believable than others. I don't think having a better such narrative than average makes it not a "subsidy in the traditional sense".
I'm in favor of subsidies for clean energy, but I'm also in favor of calling a spade a spade.
Pretty much every subsidy nowadays has some "for the public good" narrative, some more believable than others. I don't think having a better such narrative than average makes it not a "subsidy in the traditional sense".
Fair enough, but again...
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
I don't want to assume, so I have to ask: Do you understand the difference between an expense and an investment?
To clarify, it's not narrative if $X today aims to save $X x Y and Z lives tomorrow, to say nothing of the social and sociopolitical disruption. That's still a subsidy? I don't agree; at all.
2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
I don't want to assume, so I have to ask: Do you understand the difference between an expense and an investment?
To clarify, it's not narrative if $X today aims to save $X x Y and Z lives tomorrow, to say nothing of the social and sociopolitical disruption. That's still a subsidy? I don't agree; at all.
So the consumer is paying twice? Through taxes and then again when they actually purchase the power? Wow...
British taxpayer here. I'm completely fine with it. Makes me wonder what we could do had we invested that bailout in innovation rather than City of London banking.
If it keeps you from going to war (for oil) and/ or being manipulated in other way (e.g., by Big Oil) then it's money well spent.
Just an aside, but much of the bailout money was recovered when the shares the UK acquired were subsequently sold on once the banks had restabilised.
If we kept going with coal, the government might have to pay the costs of dealing with Somerset, Norfolk etc being underwater instead ...
The shift away from coal to gas started a long time ago and was driven by costs more than anything else.
That's going to happen either way, as long as other countries with coal. There are other problems with coal though that make it really not worth using either way.
Not to even mention a taller Thames Barrier.
Yes. Welcome to the world of corporate welfare.
Yes. But certainly a far better return than an excesssive over "investment" in the MIC and its ilk.
12 more years ;-)
> By 2030, Statoil says, it hopes to bring the cost of floating offshore wind down to €40-60 per MWh ($50-74 per MWh).
> By 2030, Statoil says, it hopes to bring the cost of floating offshore wind down to €40-60 per MWh ($50-74 per MWh).
You should look at how inaccurate the EIA predicted renewable generation costs would decline (they predicted decades longer). Solar and battery manufacturing costs have been dropping ~80% every decade.
Even if the cost decline curve starts to flatten, the fate of fossil and nuclear generators is sealed.
Even if the cost decline curve starts to flatten, the fate of fossil and nuclear generators is sealed.
Wind power is big on-site construction though, which doesn't decrease much in cost over time (if at all). Yes, there'll be some economies in scale if we're making ten times as many turbine blades in the future versus now, but that won't come close to the orders of magnitude improvements we've seen in cost efficiency in photovoltaic cells over the past decades.
To use a simple example outside of renewables, it's now more expensive than ever before in US history to complete a large infrastructure project (say, a new bridge across the Hudson River), but you can buy a $40 Raspberry Pi that has more processing capacity than all the billions of dollars worth of computers that existed in the 60s.
To use a simple example outside of renewables, it's now more expensive than ever before in US history to complete a large infrastructure project (say, a new bridge across the Hudson River), but you can buy a $40 Raspberry Pi that has more processing capacity than all the billions of dollars worth of computers that existed in the 60s.
Floating offshore wind has it's own manufacturing dynamics. For instance, you can build the whole structure in a shipyard and toll it, unlike onshore.
Floating towers are definitely a revolution in wind farm building.
Floating towers are definitely a revolution in wind farm building.
Also very importantly, this can keep shipyards busy building continuously, which is superior to the usual shipbuilding boom/bust cycles.
(I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)
(I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)
Any reason to believe wind farminh won't follow the same economic mood swings?
[deleted]
Wind generators would be very price elastic: if an idle shipyard makes a desperate offer, the whole profitability threshold shifts and the energy market is impossible to completely saturate (worst case you'd have so much energy that it would be economical to synthesize hydrocarbons from thin air, to pump them into the ground for CO2 credits).
Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.
Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.
What's the cost reduction of doing this? Wind blades, turbines, and towers are already built in factories; the only difference here appears to be that you don't need to do as much site prep or assembly on site? I'm sure it saves some money but I'd be surprised if it saves even half.
That's not the critical factor. The critical factor is sea depth and wind speed.
1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s!
2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive).
So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important).
[1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s!
2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive).
So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important).
[1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
How much more is it possible to get in the way of gains by moving even further offshore? Or does it top out at 8 m/s average speed?
I gave 6m/s and 8m/s as realistic numbers to show the dramatic increase with a little bit more speed. Further offshore you can have average annual speeds over 10m/s (This time, a roughly x4.5 increase in revenue compared to 6m/s) [0].
The large turbines typically operate up to 25m/s and then shut down for safety. Really large offshore turbines operate ideally at an average of 11m/s [1]. You can also see some real data here [2].
However, what investors (or farm operators) really care about it LCOE. Levelized cost of Energy over the lifetime of the machine. It's that $50/MWh and considers the revenue (roughly proportional to v^3) and all the costs. After that it's an optimization game:
- Too far = costly maintenance, costly installation, longer cables, rougher seas - Too close = not enough wind (but "cheap" installation)
(Plus many other important factors: risk, incentives, NIMBY, access to capital, wind turbulence, etc, etc)
[0] https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a [1] http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbine... [2] http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm
The large turbines typically operate up to 25m/s and then shut down for safety. Really large offshore turbines operate ideally at an average of 11m/s [1]. You can also see some real data here [2].
However, what investors (or farm operators) really care about it LCOE. Levelized cost of Energy over the lifetime of the machine. It's that $50/MWh and considers the revenue (roughly proportional to v^3) and all the costs. After that it's an optimization game:
- Too far = costly maintenance, costly installation, longer cables, rougher seas - Too close = not enough wind (but "cheap" installation)
(Plus many other important factors: risk, incentives, NIMBY, access to capital, wind turbulence, etc, etc)
[0] https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a [1] http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbine... [2] http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm
I think cost per mwh has been improving for wind not by reducing infrustructure construction costs, but by increasing the amount of power a given installation generates. If the generator/turbine is twice as efficient then the cost is halved...
This is correct. Turbine hub altitude and per turbine output continues to climb.
https://i.imgur.com/7H0Jgdm.png
https://i.imgur.com/7H0Jgdm.png
> Wind power is big on-site construction though, which doesn't decrease much in cost over time (if at all)
False. Every industry has what's known as the learning curve. It is this curve which is responsible for e.g., the 90% drop in cost of solar panels since 2000.
Wind turbine manufacture, blade manufacture, mooring, installation, maintenance, management, all are following a significant industrial learning curve and there is every reason to expect it to continue to behave like other industries.
False. Every industry has what's known as the learning curve. It is this curve which is responsible for e.g., the 90% drop in cost of solar panels since 2000.
Wind turbine manufacture, blade manufacture, mooring, installation, maintenance, management, all are following a significant industrial learning curve and there is every reason to expect it to continue to behave like other industries.
Lots of the components in wind turbines are custom made, CNC milled, etc. with more scale and focus on cost optimizations they can get far.
As for the bridge: the concrete business doesn't see a lot of innovation.
Still if corrected for inflation and aiming for similar durability, it wouldn't surprise me if today's engineering can build cheaper bridges. After all, we've learned a thing or two about suspension bridges over the years.
As for the bridge: the concrete business doesn't see a lot of innovation.
Still if corrected for inflation and aiming for similar durability, it wouldn't surprise me if today's engineering can build cheaper bridges. After all, we've learned a thing or two about suspension bridges over the years.
And hell of a lot more for offshore
Norway’s, no? It just happens to be located near Scotland.
The SNP’s plans for tidal barriers came to naught (as did their dreams of oil at $100/barrel)
The SNP’s plans for tidal barriers came to naught (as did their dreams of oil at $100/barrel)
While it is owned by Norway's state oil company, it supplies the UK National Grid and receives UK government subsidies.
So England pays, Norway gets the profit and Scotland gets the credit. Hmmm.
This is like all other power stations in a privatised economy. For example the Hinkley Point C power station is subsidised by the UK but constructed, operated and will send profit (if any) to the French state-owned EDF.
Energy is a reserved area and not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
Energy is a reserved area and not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
Yes it's ironic that all our utilities ended up as state owned after all!
England ≠ UK
I think he knows that - hence making the distinction between England (footing most of the cost) and Scotland (getting the credit).
The EarthWindMap gives one a sense of how much stronger (in general) the wind is over the sea than it is over the land:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
Very cool site, and it makes your point quite well. I panned over to the east coast of North America, and what's that? Oh yes, it's the Nor'easter that just hit that area, a big rotating storm with a very clear center.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
You might list windy as well:
https://www.windy.com/
https://www.windy.com/
I find windy cool. However, it's not useful when looking at things like hurricanes or other things with large wind differences because the color scale warps around every 70mph or so.
True. Just offering something else similar and cool for the person in the previous comment to check out.
I wonder how much energy collection it would take to significantly interrupt the polar airstream (IDK the name I'm sure there is one) - a la Day After Tomorrow but on a much slower time scale as wind comes on and alters energy.
One data point: continents do influence the airstream in very noticable ways, but even they fall far short of interrupting it.
Presumably it's stronger because there are no obstructions - like hills, mountains or large wind farms.
The material inputs for the lifetime of the project are roughly 27 t/GWh, 1/3 of which is metal. It shows how terribly poor wind energy systems are.
"Material inputs" seems to be yet another misleading statistics intended to sell nuclear. I would completely ignore it.
The nuclear industry has been trying to convince us that nuclear energy is cheap, but this is becoming a very tough sell after a series of bankruptcies and massive cost overruns.
So now they try to sell us on how great nuclear is because it uses less total weight of material per gigawatt produced.
That may be the case but it is still far more expensive than all the other options. It is like saying that a Ferrari must be cheaper than Chrysler minivan because it has about half the weight of total metal in it.
The nuclear industry has been trying to convince us that nuclear energy is cheap, but this is becoming a very tough sell after a series of bankruptcies and massive cost overruns.
So now they try to sell us on how great nuclear is because it uses less total weight of material per gigawatt produced.
That may be the case but it is still far more expensive than all the other options. It is like saying that a Ferrari must be cheaper than Chrysler minivan because it has about half the weight of total metal in it.
Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that energy isn't creating CO2 in the process. Your own data says that the EROI is quite a bit better than solar. Why does the material input matter in absolute?
Looks like your page is pretty pro-nuclear. Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.
Looks like your page is pretty pro-nuclear. Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.
> Isn't EROI the more important perspective?
Yes.
> Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.
The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
Yes.
> Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.
The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
If you agree that EROI is more important, why bring up the comment about material use? You're arguing against wind with a statistic that you just admitted isn't important.
And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
I didn't say materials intensity is unimportant. It's usually required to estimate EROI.
The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.
The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.
Just out of curiosity, how does a coal / nuclear plant compare ? Those are neither small, nor made from cotton candy.
You can have a look at my LCA page[1]. The Sanyo figures are obsolete and I should update them soon. The coal figure is double-counted but hopefully that's clear.
The LCA literature, including this page, is quite seriously flawed. But it should be a good starting point.
[1] http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
The LCA literature, including this page, is quite seriously flawed. But it should be a good starting point.
[1] http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
I looked at that site, but the data here is hard to verify, and the methodology is a bit unclear. E.g., coal energy only has a coal material flow, the wind turbine only a steel material flow. I'm not even sure if that means that the turbine has a life expectancy of so many GW and then is considered evaporated. I suppose coal plans are made of cotton candy, or the material per GWh is negligible ?
Trying to figure this out, a nuclear plant might have 1GW capacity and a lifetime of 30 years, so ≈260,000 hours. [1] seems to suggest a plant would need 40,000t of steel, or about 0.16t steel/GWh over the lifetime, with coal plans using over twice that. My math might be off, or the assumptions might be wrong.
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a0...
Trying to figure this out, a nuclear plant might have 1GW capacity and a lifetime of 30 years, so ≈260,000 hours. [1] seems to suggest a plant would need 40,000t of steel, or about 0.16t steel/GWh over the lifetime, with coal plans using over twice that. My math might be off, or the assumptions might be wrong.
[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a0...
what happens to that metal afterwards? wouldn't it continue to be metal which can scrapped and reused? the reuse/remelt is much more energy efficient then original production you seem to allude to.
Yes, metal can be recycled. It's still more energy-intensive than concrete. Materials intensity is a pretty good figure of merit for energy systems, and energy intensity is an ideal one.
Concrete's CO2 emissions are, however, doubled by the chemical processes used to make cement.
Which is relevant in what way? The amount of concrete is small in relative terms, so doubling a small quantity is still a small quantity. A forest fire will put out significantly more CO2 and they occur quite frequently around the globe.
If you want us to take your comment seriously, you will need to show that the CO2 emissions would be on some significant level.
If you want us to take your comment seriously, you will need to show that the CO2 emissions would be on some significant level.
Concrete (specifically, the cement used to produce it) accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions:
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-c...
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-c...
I guess he's talking about the initial investment. Not sure how this compares to solar. I know that solar would be much better, but in some places it's not an option.
Solar can get to ~ 3 t/GWh under ideal circumstances (panels only). With balance of plant (mounting hardware, transmission infrastructure etc) it's at least twice that (and about the same as onshore wind).
What does material inputs mean?
Many years ago some people were looking into reclaiming the island and making it the worlds biggest wind farm. It is in a perfect location. Plus you never know, might be able to make it an independent nation ;). Possibly a good launch site?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland