|
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 Wind Power That FloatsContinued from page 1 By Peter Fairley
Faster rotation also means less torque, meaning that the entire structure can be built lighter. (See "Wind Power for Pennies.") The rotor, gearbox, and generator of Blue H's 2.5-megawatt turbine will weigh 97 tons--53 tons lighter than the lightest machine of the same power output on the market. "This is a big advantage," says Jakubowski. "For us, weight on top is something we have to push up." The turbine and platform are correspondingly cheaper to build, he says. The net result, says Jakubowski, should be a highly competitive energy source. He estimates that Blue H's wind farms will deliver wind energy for seven to eight cents per kilowatt-hour, roughly matching the current cost of natural gas-fired generation and conventional onshore wind energy. And it will be out of sight and thus, the company hopes, out of mind for competing local interests such as tourism. The site off Cape Cod where Blue H intends to install a test platform next summer for its first U.S. wind farm will be 23 miles off the coast. Blue H's Norwegian competitor SWAY is using a different combination of offshore platform technology and turbine design. SWAY's platform is, in essence, a spar buoy that can rise and fall gently with wave action, thus requiring less anchoring than the tension-leg platform. The buoy, a column nearly 200 meters tall, will be held in place by a 2,400-ton gravel ballast on the seabed. Its turbine is three-bladed, but in contrast to conventional onshore turbines, it is allowed to face downwind rather than held upwind to better accommodate heeling of the tower. Paul Sclavounos, a mechanical engineer and a specialist in naval architecture at MIT, whose lab is designing both kinds of structures for offshore turbines, says that both companies have chosen viable flotation methods, although he believes that the spar approach taken by SWAY will be better adapted to rougher waters. He says that Blue H's platform may work off the Italian coast, but anchoring it to handle the 30-to-40-meter waves that New England's storms can whip up may not be economical. "The cost that really drives this business is primarily the foundation," says Sclavounos. Where he questions both firms is in their decision to redesign the wind turbines. Sclavounos says that his group is designing both spars and platforms to carry conventional five-megawatt turbines designed for onshore or shallow-water offshore applications. "You don't want to redesign the turbines for offshore deployment because that's going to be very expensive, and it's probably not necessary early on," he says. In Sclavounos view, the economics of the power industry are already approaching a tipping point that will drive rapid adoption of floating turbines. "The technology is essentially proven," he says. "We know we can design [platforms] and spars that are not going to move in big storms. What is going to lead to this industry taking off will be the economics. When carbon-emissions trading markets start maturing, you're going to see this industry take off, even without state subsidies. We're not far from it." |


Comments
SVE on 04/02/2008 at 2:06 AM
42
blunney on 04/02/2008 at 3:01 AM
15
http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/
DJTal on 04/02/2008 at 3:33 AM
115
Underwater tidal turbines would be much cheaper , and would not be visible at all providing a predictable supply of energy . Like the one just installed in the mouth of Strangford Loch in Northern Ireland .
Or perhaps wind turbines could be situated on the same towers as tidal turbines to reduce the cost . There isn't a lack of space on land for wind turbines , it just takes time for people to get used to them and to see the benefits . There are plenty of wasted spaces on rooftops for turbines .
DennisBuller on 04/02/2008 at 9:35 PM
12
Except, after 30 years of development, wind is successful and people will invest in it.
Underwater turbines have yet to prove themselves, and have not gone through this development process.
Unfortunately, I do not see this technology getting the money it needs to really come to the front, where it belongs....
For all the talk of alternative energy, if a government somewhere does not pay to develop the technology, I do not see private investors doing it.
And yes I know about Verdant, but like I have said, to little money for them really to grow like they need to.
Siphon on 04/03/2008 at 5:52 AM
94
Also, if Tubercle technology is as advertised, they could plausibly produce power for much less, as they could greatly increase the output per turbine - which is inversely proportional with costs per kWh. Superconducting technology could also help, to make the generator much lighter and so reduce structural costs. Scaleup to even bigger sizes, say 5MWe (already commercially available) could reduce the cost even more.
It's like the article says, if they can get the cost down, there really is great potential for floating offshore wind, with an extremely large resource base, consistent and reliable winds, and virtually no public opposition.
neiljg on 04/06/2008 at 6:38 PM
1
If wind power was used in a system where a hydro-electric pump storage system was available then it would make much more sense.
I support alternative energy but not just for feel-good reasons - they must work.
As far as I understand it the only technology suitable for base-load generation is the experimental Carnot engine driven by temperature differentials in the ocean
Siphon on 04/08/2008 at 12:25 PM
94
Nuclear cannot compete with wind/caes schemes, especially now with Tubercles.
Also, nuclear power plants are inflexible, they cannot follow a load because of thermal cycling stresses which make O&M prohibitive, if it can be done at all with existing reactor designs with regards to safety and reliability.
We already have 20% nuclear, more than enough for baseload. New ones are too expensive, and building a large number would require them to either follow the load, which is expensive, or complement them with natural gas peakers, which is also expensive.
Flexible, dispatchable electricity systems is what we should be looking for.
MakeSense on 04/03/2008 at 11:46 AM
67
I like the two-blade and downwind designs. NREL and the Wind Turbine Company designed a two-blade, downwind turbine years ago that saved on material costs. These should do the same.
Kevin Bullis on 04/03/2008 at 1:55 PM
Nanotechnology and Materials Science Editor
39
DJTal on 04/05/2008 at 4:08 AM
115
If you want bring wind energy close to the people , MakeSense , then place wind turbines on roof tops , no need to build expensive new supporting towers for the turbines , and the same goes for the solar power industry . Reducing the number of turbine blades reduces the wieght by a tiny amount compared to the rest of the structure .
MakeSense on 04/06/2008 at 2:33 PM
67
lkrndu on 04/07/2008 at 2:44 AM
18
ALL of this sounds fantastic. So let the engineers, i.e. the sharp-pencil crew, get to work. After all the word 'engineering' is sometimes coupled to 'economy'. As if that weren't an oxymoron.
Do the math. If the economies and compromises work out, great.
Here are a couple of things that HAVE changed since 1975, and certainly since 1920, the two time benchmarks in the Phoenix project schema:
Permanent magnet alternators are simpler, cheaper, and much more productive than in the past thanks to better magnet technology.
Solid-state power conversion technology is far more capable than even a few years ago.
There are more rooftops than ever.
And here are some things that are true now, just as they have been, forever:
AC at high voltage may be transmitted over longer distances with less line loss and using smaller, cheaper conductors than can lower voltages or DC.
Rooftops are lousy places for wind turbines, beween the turbulence and obstructions to airflow that abound and the structural and nuisance effects of noise and vibration loads.
And yet, re-animations of some OLD turbine designs (Darrius and its variants, among several possibilities) offer decent efficiencies combined with rather handsome, one might even say beautiful forms.
Who knows? Might work.
zig158 on 04/02/2008 at 5:41 AM
56
With a good mass reproducible modular design, this could be a top contender.
By the way, carbon-emissions trading are subsidies. They are artificially imposed by the government.
jpontin on 04/02/2008 at 10:01 AM
Editor in Chief and Publisher
18
franquellim on 04/07/2008 at 1:04 PM
10
Tysto on 05/13/2008 at 1:04 AM
16
Toilets, plumbing, sewage pipes, and sewage treatment plants can't compete "on a fair footing" with throwing your poop in the street, but we all agree the higher cost is worth it.
m.pivoda on 04/02/2008 at 7:45 AM
1
jgkneuer on 04/02/2008 at 8:45 AM
1
rlindsl on 04/02/2008 at 11:57 AM
9
Offshore wind and solar power generating arrays could become the largest manmade structures in history, there are scales of economy and fewer logistical constraints compared to land based solar and wind gen facilities. There are even financial and regulatory incentives to offshoring hydrogen generation. Given the hoopla over gas terminals and the flexibility in sites possible of the offshore facilities, hydrogen pipelines may be better than tanker storage and transport in some places.
Siphon on 04/03/2008 at 5:42 AM
94
rlindsl on 04/12/2008 at 10:36 PM
9
Siphon on 06/04/2008 at 9:59 AM
94
But the losses inherent to the hydrogen scheme make it uncompetitive to transporting electricity, even when the downsides of the latter are considered.
MakeSense on 04/03/2008 at 11:51 AM
67
exushri on 04/02/2008 at 12:21 PM
2
MakeSense on 04/06/2008 at 2:26 PM
67
kearns on 04/02/2008 at 5:36 PM
25
Obviously they do it, but that area gets little attention. Usually the pumping losses for electricity are pretty large over long distances.
MakeSense on 04/03/2008 at 11:58 AM
67
High voltage DC (HVDC) lines have become the best choice for long distances. If many wind farms are put offshore, it could be advantageous to collect power from them through a connected system of HVDC lines. Since wind power produces DC power, no conversion to AC would be needed, thus saving money and weight. The added bonus would be a great reduction in intermittency.
lkrndu on 04/07/2008 at 3:03 AM
18
In fact wind power may produce AC - or DC, depending on choice of hardware, i.e. alternator or DC generator driven by the turbine. I'm not certain which has the upper hand in productivity and economics but imagine the factors involved to be many: distance to consumer, mode of transmission, capacity of turbines, siting, and more.
In theory an alternator might be made to produce high-voltage low-current power, which may be efficiently transmitted over some distance.
Then again wind turbines which spin at variable rates produce AC with variable frequencies. Harnessing several together thus becomes a trick which can be met by rectifying the output of each turbine-alternator to DC at high enough voltage to make long-distance transmission economical.
MakeSense on 04/08/2008 at 12:32 PM
67
jmaximus9 on 04/02/2008 at 9:39 PM
34
mkogrady on 04/03/2008 at 1:38 PM
92