Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)

Feb 11, 2012 by Nancy Owano weblog

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Walney wind farm on the Irish Sea--characterized by high tides, waves and windy weather--officially opened this week. The farm is treated in the press as a very big deal as the Walney farm is presently the biggest offshore wind farm in the world. According to DONG Energy, which is part of the venture responsible for the Walney farm, the project is approximately 15km from the coastline of Walney Island in a north west to south-easterly direction.

The farm has 102 turbines and a capacity of 367 megawatts, said to be enough power for 320,000 homes. The behind the Walney wind farm involves the Denmark-based DONG Energy, which is a leading energy group in , and several other companies. The breakdown is DONG Energy (50.1%), SSE (25.1%) and OPW ( 24.8%). According to reports, DONG Energy has around 30 per cent of the offshore wind market throughout Europe.

Ed Davey, Energy and Secretary, has voiced enthusiastic support of the offshore wind farm. Britain, with more than 1,500 megawatts of offshore wind, intends to see a capacity boost to 18,000 by 2020. Over the near term, Davey predicted that 2012 through 2014 will be all about the "" of offshore wind.

DONG likewise attaches importance to the UK push; the company notes that the scale of the offshore envisioned by the UK is larger than in any other country in the world. Following the Walney opening, another big event scheduled is the London Array off the coast of Kent, to debut by the end of the year. Observers say it will dwarf the Walney farm, to become the world’s largest , powering 750,000 homes. The first phase will power two-thirds of all the homes in Kent.

Government enthusiasm over offshore wind farms is countered, however, by skeptics who remain unconvinced that offshore wind farms are a good energy solution and by those who are opposed to wind farms period. (In the UK, energy watchers underwhelmed by wind power contend that wind power does little or nothing to offset CO2, and isn’t economically viable without subsidies. Moreover, British economist Ruth Lea has said that when all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term.)

According to findings from the Bloomberg New Energy Finance group, installing turbines offshore costs about 3.3 million pounds a megawatt, higher than the cost to build a onshore, estimated at 1.25 million pounds a megawatt.

Davey, however, is optimistic. He has maintained that even though offshore wind turbines are presently a high-cost form of energy, with adequate support the cost can come down; he said that, over the longer term, offshore wind will provide a low-cost form of energy if compared to fossil fuels. He said another benefit to offshore wind farms is that they will provide jobs and perhaps even an export market for the UK.

According to Reuters, offshore wind farms will receive UK government subsidies until 2015, which will subsequently be reduced by 5 percent. Onshore wind farms, which are less costly to build, will see subsidies cut gradually by 10 percent.

Explore further: Global boom in hydropower expected this decade

More information: www.dongenergy.com/Walney/Abou… out_the_project.aspx

Related Stories

Germany's first offshore wind farm begins turning

Apr 27, 2010

The blades began turning at Germany's first offshore wind farm Tuesday, 45 kilometres (28 miles) off the coast in the North Sea, with 12 turbines producing energy for 50,000 households.

Vestas Announces New 7 megawatt offshore wind turbine

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Vestas Chief Executive Officer Ditlev Engel announced in London their new V164 wind turbine, designed specifically for offshore wind power. Optimized for conditions in the North Sea, Vestas ...

Recommended for you

Should the Japanese give nuclear power another chance?

8 hours ago

On September 9, 2014, the Japan Times reported an increasing number of suicides coming from the survivors of the March 2011 disaster. In Minami Soma Hospital, which is located 23 km away from the power plant, ...

UK wind power share shows record rise

11 hours ago

The United Kingdom wind power production has been enjoying an upward trajectory, and on Tuesday wind power achieved a significant energy production milestone, reported Brooks Hays for UPI. High winds from Hurricane Gonzalo were the force behind wind turbines outproducing nuclear power ...

Global boom in hydropower expected this decade

15 hours ago

An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce ...

User comments : 88

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2012
I wasn't aware of how big DONG really is.
dkl1973
3 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2012
Some DONGs are bigger than others.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (34) Feb 11, 2012
Worlds biggest waste of money ... "wind turbines are presently a high-cost form of energy".

And some days, like when its cold, they only output a few percent of their rated capacity. So people freeze. Old people. Old people who would normally be a burden on socialized medicine. Which is the point.

Wind turbines kill birds and old people.
MR166
2 / 5 (23) Feb 11, 2012
Until there is an economic way to store the energy produced by these turbines they really do not lower fossil fuel consumption by nearly as much as claimed. Fossil fueled plants still need to be up and running in a standby mode in case the wind dies. Now if we all had smart switchable electric meters and were willing to purchase electricity that could be turned off by the electric company when the wind turbines were off line, that would be an fuel saving "Green" solution to the problem.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2012
Worlds biggest waste of money ... "wind turbines are presently a high-cost form of energy".

Seeing as they invested a lot of their own money in this I would suspect that they did a fair amount of calculations on whether they can turn a profit on such an endeavour.

Certainly more than some guy just saying: "Worlds biggest waste of money"

Fossil fueled plants still need to be up and running in a standby mode in case the wind dies.

Gas power plants can be up and running on a moments notice.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2012
"Seeing as they invested a lot of their own money in this I would suspect that they did a fair amount of calculations on whether they can turn a profit on such an endeavour."

Now if they said turn a profit without huge ratepayer subsidies I would jump up and down for joy.

With the proper government connections, any project can be made profitable.
MR166
2 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2012
"Gas power plants can be up and running on a moments notice."

I suppose that depends what your definition of a "moments notice" is. When an energy source goes off line it plays havoc with the grid and users have to be shed in seconds. Somehow this causes other functioning generating stations to shutdown and the problem can quickly cascade into a major blackout. Nothing in power generation is as simple as it appears.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2012
I suppose that depends what your definition of a "moments notice" is.
My old office has a gas backup generator, and the transition was seamless. Besides a UPS for computers can be had starting around $35.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (20) Feb 11, 2012
What in Gods name does that have to do with the grid????
El_Nose
Feb 11, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2012
What in Gods name does that have to do with the grid????
Everything. With seamless transitions, the grid is virtual and self-healing.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 11, 2012
So your answer is to have every household spend 2 or 3 thousand dollars for a UPS system for their home and perhaps a milion or two for an apartment complex so that a few megawatts of wind energy can be utilized. BTW-----what are all these UPS systems going to run on-----fairy dust? Alternate energy, unfortunately, is still a pipe dream.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2012
Again, among other things, converting wind into energy means removing the energy of some wind, and that means removing wind, so air movement downwind of the farm will be lessened. And that is likely to have a serious effect on environment all around.
And, also, among other things, if there were really a need, and if those who claim there was a need and who said they wanted to be energy independent meant it, they could have outfitted houses with collections of no more than about 25 car type batteries, rechargeable with a simple hand crank mechanism, and most of their needs could be met. But there is no need and they don't want to be energy indepdendent, it's all a lie.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 11, 2012
"rechargeable with a simple hand crank mechanism" Well that would certainly put Weight Watchers out of business. Seriously, The average athlete would be hard pressed to produce enough power to light a 100 watt light bulb for an hour.
cdkeli
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2012
But in what way is it the biggest? Price paid? Number of turbines? Area covered? Megawatts? Number of dead birds per hour, day,month? All of the above?
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 11, 2012
So your answer is to have every household spend 2 or 3 thousand dollars for a UPS system for their home and perhaps a milion or two for an apartment complex so that a few megawatts of wind energy can be utilized. BTW-----what are all these UPS systems going to run on-----fairy dust?
The UPS can be their electric car battery. Man you really are Mr. half-empty, aren't you?
But in what way is it the biggest?
Number of closed nuclear plants and overpaid nuclear engineers forced to do something valuable like burger-flipping.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (25) Feb 11, 2012
It is funny how Exxon Mobile had a few Canadian Geese die in one of their storage ponds and had to pay millions in fines. Yet, the wind turbines in the Altamont Pass in California kill hundreds of eagles every year ( an endangered species ) and are considered "Green" and suffer no fines.
ShotmanMaslo
2.1 / 5 (18) Feb 11, 2012
The farm has 102 turbines and a capacity of 367 megawatts


Nameplate capacity. I wonder what the actual production in MWh is?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2012
Yet, the wind turbines in the Altamont Pass in California kill hundreds of eagles every year
Pacific Gas and Electric doesn't pay for power line kills, either. Power lines kill far more birds. Why don't you move off the grid if you're so teary-eyed?

Birds aren't retarded they will learn to avoid windmills which are clustered, unlike ubiquitous power lines. Aavians must adapt to humans in any case. No better time than now. They seem to be doing a good job so far.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (22) Feb 11, 2012
kochevnik, perhaps you will be willing to explain to the average homeowner how to hook up their refrigerator to a 12 volt car battery but not me. Please post your telephone number here so that I can refer them to you!!!!!
MR166
2 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2012
"Pacific Gas and Electric doesn't pay for power line kills, either."

So a crow and a Golden Eagle are all the same to you? How many birds on the endangered species list were killed by power lines?
Telekinetic
2.9 / 5 (16) Feb 11, 2012
'Again, among other things, converting wind into energy means removing the energy of some wind, and that means removing wind, so air movement downwind of the farm will be lessened. And that is likely to have a serious effect on environment all around."-Don Quixote-Penrod

So it was the Dutch who threw off the wind balances of the world centuries ago with their destructive windmills. That explains everything.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2012
kochevnik, perhaps you will be willing to explain to the average homeowner how to hook up their refrigerator to a 12 volt car battery.
That's trivial plug-and-play with a bidirectional inverter.
So a crow and a Golden Eagle are all the same to you? How many birds on the endangered species list were killed by power lines?
Plenty. You see those landing planks installed on power lines? That's because an eagle's wingspan is wide enough to touch two wires. I saw one do that, fall to the ground and set a field ablaze causing a firestorm that burned 1/4 sq. mile. I have personally seen three dead eagle corpses by power lines in your country. Power companies actually advertised their planks as a stopgap for all the eagles they were killing. It's probably the single largest factor for eagles being an endangered species.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 11, 2012
I looked it up and stand humbly corrected. My real point was the fact that Exxon Mobile was fined a few million dollars for killing a few nuisance (far far far from endangered) Canadian Geese but the wind farm can kill eagles and suffer no fines. In reality, Exxon Mobile is just as important to the nation as a few Mega Watts from a wind farm.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2012
Among other things, the Dutch windmills did not convert a great deal of wind to energy. Their friction was far greater than those use for power generation. Power generatin windmills need very little wind to start them moving and so conert more wind energy. Also, note that the number of Dutch windmills was much smaller per square mile than in modern windfarms, and that there are far more wind farms, in far more areas of the world, than the old fashioned windmills. Also, the older windmills were lower to the ground than the power generating ones, and were all built on land. In that way, they mimicked forests in absorbing wind energy. But there is nothing in the open ocean whose wind absorbing qualities the ocean borne windmills resemble.
Estevan57
2.5 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2012
Wind power of course, is meant to augment other supplies of electrical energy. A gas powered plant is hardly ever powered down, but can run at a lower rate of fuel consumption with the addition of wind power to the grid.
That is the point of developing alternative power sources that won't be cost efficient until the economies of scale can come into play. It is not an either or proposition, it will be a combination of both. Can someone really believe the air will have less energy after going thrugh a wind farm? lol
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (34) Feb 11, 2012
500 milion birds killed by cats very year. Audubon Society.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Feb 11, 2012
"And some days, like when its cold, they only output a few percent of their rated capacity. So people freeze." - ParkerTard

Anyone who uses electricity for heating deserves to freeze.
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 11, 2012
You hear that howling wind being diverted through an empty skull?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (22) Feb 11, 2012
Seeing as they invested a lot of their own money in this I would suspect that they did a fair amount of calculations on whether they can turn a profit on such an endeavour.


"wind power does little or nothing to offset CO2, and isnt economically viable without subsidies."

If I subsidized you at triple the going rate to dig holes and fill them in, you could turn a profit too. But it would not really be worth the subsidies.

"Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual."

http://www.telegr...lls.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Feb 11, 2012
"If I subsidized you at triple the going rate to dig holes and fill them in, you could turn a profit too." - ParkerTard

Wrong again Tard Boy. You are confusing subsidy with grant.

Electricity rates are being subsidized to lower prices for the consumer.

In the case of digging holes and filling them in, no one would pay for such a thing, and hence there would be no subsidy. 30% of 0 is 0.

You would know that if you weren't numerically illiterate.
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (32) Feb 12, 2012
Whether it is cold or not doesn't affect the amount of airFLOW. It's just cold air. That why (among other reasons) the turbines are put at sea, for the maximum rate of flow. Sea breeze and all. Yes, kill the dispicable bastages that heat with electricity! My sarcasm cup overfloweth. Apartment dwellers don't always have a choice of the source of their heat. Nor do people in older house that can't afford to upgrade. 320,000 homes is a great start, but as the article states, wind power has always been for the long term. As with most new energy technologies time and researh will improve the products. Cell phones aren't brick sized anymore...
ShotmanMaslo
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 12, 2012
"And some days, like when its cold, they only output a few percent of their rated capacity. So people freeze." - ParkerTard

Anyone who uses electricity for heating deserves to freeze.


So we should use dirty fossil energy for heating?
And what exactly do you propose to use for heating when fossil fuels run out?

Electric heating is the way to go for the future. EVERYTHING has to be electric if we want to get rid of fossil fuels.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2012
Removing wind power at a very low altitude over a tiny stretch does not alter wind patterns (these are kilometer high columns of wind stretching hundreds of kilometers in any direction)

Wind is a converted in nature into all kinds of things: bending of trees and grass, waves lapping on your shore, soil being carried off (soil erosion). now are you really saying that all f nature will break down if grass bends a little less once in a while or waves are a cm less tall than they used to?

As for "having to be on at a moments notice". Windpower over a continet wide system doesn't just start/stop on a dime. There are such things as weather forecasts, you know?
djr
4.4 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2012
Briefly on the issue of the environmental and wildlife cost of alternatives vs fossil fuels. Are we able to calculate the environmental/wildlife cost of BP's gulf oil spill. That was not an isolated incident. There are oil leaks being reported off the coast of S.America as we speak. Nigeria is apparently an environmental disaster as a result of the oil spills. So the reality is we are in the process of transitioning to a new energy paradigm - after hundreds of years of fossil fuel use. Everything we do has environmental cost. I kill hundreds of bugs every time I drive my car on the highway. Coal has immense environmental cost. I support the transition to alternatives - but guess what - it dont matter what I think - this locomotive is moving - and nothing I do or say will change it.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2012
"and isnt economically viable without subsidies." I think you are accurate in this assessment Parker. However - the cost curve is coming down - and wind is certainly viable from some other perspectives. As a society we must make choices about our energy. There are many options - and many factors affecting our choices. Many governments (China, European, India, Canada, Australia, U.S., S. Korea etc.) that have chosen to put incentives in place to support a young industry. We could think that all of these governments are stupid - or perhaps they see benefits to their societies to giving this industry a leg up. Fossils, and nuclear also get government support. I believe that wind and solar are viable if you take a big picture view. Here is an interesting cost analysis out of France - showing the 2020 cost of electricity - Nuclear - 102 Euro per Mwh, onshore wind 58 Euro, and offshore wind 75 Euro. All grist for the mill. http://www.evwind...ot=16427
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2012
"and isnt economically viable without subsidies." One more point - Fusion is not economically viable. We are pouring vast resources in the development of Fusion. Fusion research will probably cost around $80 billion Euros when the dust settles - without the generation of one watt of usable energy. http://en.wikiped...conomics Are you campaigning against the use of these funds? I think we would be spending our money more wisely by supporting renewables more heavily - but I also will be very excited if I live to see our society run on the infinite power of fusion. Sometimes you have to take a risk - and put some resources in the front end - to get the pay off on the back end.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 12, 2012
The real problem with solar and wind energy is their intermittent nature. In a free market I am willing to bet that they are priced at a very substantial discount to the power produced by conventional plants. Most analysts use the rates commanded by conventional plants when valuing wind and solar energy. This is just not the case. A non reliable KWH is worth a lot less than one that can be depended upon.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 12, 2012
We are pouring vast resources in the development of Fusion.


There is a difference between "losing money" on R & D where the goal is to mass produce fusion power plants that will generate electricity cheaply and safely ... and mass producing products that produce 1/20th the electricity for the same capital investment that gas power plants do.

If we were mass producing fusion reactors where they cost 20x what an NG power plants did then I would be against them too.

Wait 50/100 years to when we run out of shale gas. Or wait until unsubsidized wind turbines are as cheap as NG power plants. And as reliable.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 12, 2012
VD: Anyone who uses electricity for heating deserves to freeze.


Over 30% of homes in the US use electricity for heating. And all homes that have A/C use electricity for the A/C units.

Yeah yeah. VD says "Let Them Die". Let the old broil in summer in Arizona. And freeze in the winter all throughout the US.

As I've said numerous times, VD and his environmentalist ilk hate the old and poor.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 12, 2012
500 milion birds killed by cats very year. Audubon Society.


How many protected species? You go to jail for killing bald eagles unless you are a wind farm. Then you get a government subsidy for producing expensive intermittent electricity.

"Wind farm will seek permit to legally kill eagles"

http://www.startr...668.html

How many oil fields could get bald eagle killing permit?
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 12, 2012
The real problem with solar and wind energy is their intermittent nature.
Not really. The problem is your limited imagination.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 12, 2012
The real problem with solar and wind energy is their intermittent nature.
Not really. The problem is your limited imagination.


"Polish network operator PSE Operator is planning to add switches on the border. Their task would be meant to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from exporting excess eco-electricity. Whenever this occurs, the operators of the Polish coal power plants must suddenly shut down the plants to avoid an overload. People in Warsaw are worried that the active high-power stations are not ready for such shutdowns and that an unexpected surplus of energy could even lead to a blackout."

http://motls.blog...and.html
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2012
"The real problem with solar and wind energy is their intermittent nature." We know about the intermittent problem of wind and solar. The engineers are working on it - and making a lot of progress. At this point grid scale utility companies are finding that as long as they keep intermittents to around 20 to 30 percent, they can handle the variability just fine. Peaker plants can help adjust to the intermittency. Demand control is another part of the solution. States are having success with tiered pricing. Yes - we have acknowledged that wind and solar are still above more traditional energy sources - but the cost curve is approaching grid parity. You guys keep regurgitating the same old arguments. We are pouring billions into the development of fusion - but you are OK with that. What is wrong with also putting the incentives into developing wind and solar. There are many today living off the grid with wind and solar - it can be done.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 12, 2012
Kochevnik go ahead stick your head in the sand if it gives you that warm, fuzzy, green feeling. I myself prefer to base our future on reality. I know, your next argument will be how it reduces CO2 emissions and will save the planet from all but certain incineration and flooding.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2012
"If we were mass producing fusion reactors where they cost 20x what an NG power plants did then I would be against them too." Please give us a source for this 20x figure. My understanding is that wind costs are very close to fossil fuels. Plenty of info and sources in this reference - http://en.wikiped...t_trends putting the Mwh cost of wind at $56 - coal at $53, and gas at $52. Again please - source your 20x number - or is it as I suspect - you are pulling numbers out of the air. Please source your 20x figure - or stop lying.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 12, 2012
Fusion is another pipe dream. Yes spend a billion or so on it since is is part of basic research. Fission deserves a lot more money since there are quite a few new technologies that can overcome the objections and risks of the present plants.
I am not against solar and wind just as long as the real costs are taken into account. For instance, did you ever try to sleep when there was a drip in an adjoining room? You can't put a DB figure on that. How far away does a wind turbine have to be away from the nearest dwelling to avoid psychological effects? So if they want to buy all the existing homes in a 3 mile radius of the wind farm fine. Otherwise perhaps they need to be offshore.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2012
Kochevnik go ahead stick your head in the sand if it gives you that warm, fuzzy, green feeling. I myself prefer to base our future on reality. I know, your next argument will be how it reduces CO2 emissions and will save the planet from all but certain incineration and flooding.
Reality tends to be better for those with vision. Nothing personal. You might be my best buddy if some nutcase got hold of nuclear launch codes. At the moment my prognosis is that the austerity is 100% manmade. In the natural world life on Earth has never been this good. We a living in Garden of Eden. Unfortunately we are a butt stupid species only marginally mutated from our ape cousins. We have to work against our small craniums, which are so tiny we we delude ourselves into thinking we have a modicum of control over our lives.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2012
The real problem with solar and wind energy is their intermittent nature.

This is only a problem when you have a small grid. The larger your grid the more things average out.

The wind does not stop flowing all over the globe at the same time. Neither is there ever a day where the day side is largely covered in clouds.

Yes: There are fluctuations. We definitely will have to put some system into place to store power for short periods of low energy production when we move to total 'green' energy production. But I think there are solutions.

If nothing else we can put up concrete bubbles at the bottom of the oceans and use energy to pump out water. When needeed we can then flood them again and have the flooding water turn generators. (Dunno if this is cost effective, but it would be technologically simple. Hangars of this type have been erected during wartime. Just inflate them and pump concrete into the middle layer )
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (22) Feb 12, 2012
Please source your 20x figure - or stop lying.


Offshore wind 243$ per MW and runs at 30% capacity
NG CCC 66$/MW and runs 87% of the time.

3.7x the cost. x 87/30 = 10.7x the cost.

And I suspect those numbers are being very very generous to offshore wind. And were from 3 years ago.

http://en.wikiped...y_source

And those costs do not include spinning reserve.

"In a sane world, no one would dream of building power sources whose cost is 22 times greater than that of vastly more efficient competitors."

http://www.telegr...cam.html
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 12, 2012
And environmental costs are not considered.

"This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem"

http://www.dailym...ale.html
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (26) Feb 12, 2012
Please source your 20x figure - or stop lying.


"£500 million on building 30 fivemegawatt turbines with a total capacity of 150MW. What Shukman did not tell us, because the BBC never does, is that, thanks to the vagaries of the wind, these machines will only produce a fraction of their capacity (30 per cent was the offshore average in the past two years). So their actual output is only likely to average 45MW, or £11 million per MW.

Compare this with the figures for Britains newest gas-fired power station, recently opened in Plymouth. This is capable of generating 882MW at a capital cost of £400 million just £500,000 for each megawatt. Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive"

http://www.telegr...cam.html
djr
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2012
"Thus the wind farm is 22 times more expensive" Except you forget to mention that is capitol costs - and has nothing to do with the per watt cost of generating the power. And from #'s in an article u urself referenced http://en.wikiped...sources- the 2010 cost in Euros of generating the power was as follows - nukes 102-124, coal 88 - 107, gas 106-118, onshore wind 49 - 96, offshore wind 35 - 150. So to state that a wind farm is 22 times more expensive makes you look really stupid - thinking that people dont understand the difference between capitol cost to build - and the cost per watt of generated power. Please be more honest with your comments.
NotParker
2 / 5 (24) Feb 12, 2012
The 22x figure is for capital costs of course.

And those costs do not included spinning reserve as the Wikipedia entry says: "In the case of wind energy, the additional costs in terms of increased back up and grid interconnection to allow for diversity of weather and load may be substantial."

And the costs usually do not include subsidies as the Wikipedia entry notes: "Note that the above figures incorporate tax breaks for the various forms of power plants."

On top of that, wind power is heavily subsidized. The figures from Wikipedia do not include feed in tariffs which are huge. Or secret payments to not run the wind farm at certain times.

And that ignores the fact that the NG or coal power plant may last 50 years while the wind turbines gearboxes will fail in 5-7.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 12, 2012
TOn top of that, wind power is heavily subsidized. The figures from Wikipedia do not include feed in tariffs which are huge. Or secret payments to not run the wind farm at certain times.


http://www.fitari.../levels/

Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (36) Feb 12, 2012
Wind power of course, is meant to augment other supplies of electrical energy.

My wind turbine is 300 ft. from my house and it is whisper quiet. Quieter than the moderately traveled road 1/4 mile away. I use it to augment the regular service and to run water pumps for irrigation. It cuts about 30 to 60% from the bill every month. Paid for itself in 4 years. It also had a subsidy/tax rebate for installation. I may get another when the economy picks up. Haven't seen a dead bird yet.

Noone is building the giant turbines like the ones at sea close to housing. People can get used to almost any noise, highway, schools, construction, etc. Can't hear the ones at sea....

Wind prices will always be the same. Gas? Nope.

Anyone live near a natural gas rig? The whining of the generator is 24 - 7 and LOUD! And fracking for natural gas, wow, great stuff. NIMBY please.

If you don't have nothing relative to say about the article go to another forum. Cynicism is not neccessarily productive.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (15) Feb 12, 2012
Funny to see atavists protesting wind power. Can people really be that ****ed up? Or are they really corporate shills working overtime?
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (30) Feb 13, 2012
LOL Kochevnik, do you mean activists or atavists? Look it up. ;)
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 13, 2012
Well, we certainly do have some atavisms here.
Meyer
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2012
Removing wind power at a very low altitude over a tiny stretch does not alter wind patterns (these are kilometer high columns of wind stretching hundreds of kilometers in any direction)

Wind farms don't affect the overall wind patterns, but they introduce turbulence that increases the vertical mixing of air of different temperatures, affecting the temperature and humidity up to 20 km downwind from the turbines. The effects are less pronounced if the region already has natural sources of turbulence, but it is something to take into consideration for installations on flat farmland or at sea.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
affecting the temperature and humidity up to 20 km downwind from the turbines.

Link?

And how exactly would this even be relevant in off shore installations? All it would do is reduce the height of waves some distance behind the wind farm. Big deal.

Even on land we do want less wind in some parts. Think of how reducing airspeed over ground could reduce soil erosion if these were placed strategically between fields. We used to do this with trees.
Trees did nothing else: they 'destroyed' wind energy by bending and transferring the energy to the ground where it was effectively lost.

Somehow taking wind energy out of the system via trees is OK, but if you do it via a rotor its ecological Armaggedon? I don't quite get how that 'logic' works.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (43) Feb 13, 2012
"Over 30% of homes in the US use electricity for heating." - ParkerTard

It isn't at all surprising that 30% of Americans are absolute fools.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Feb 13, 2012
And that ignores the fact that the NG or coal power plant may last 50 years while the wind turbines gearboxes will fail in 5-7.

The gearboxes driving the generators in nuclear plants don't last 50 years either.

Why do you feel a need to distort Parker Tard?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (42) Feb 13, 2012
"So to state that a wind farm is 22 times more expensive makes you look really stupid" - Dir

You have to remember. Parker Tard has no interest in honesty or reality.

Not only does Parker Tard ignore capitol costs but he ignores emission costs and fuel costs. Honesty is not his middle name.

djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2012
"So to state that a wind farm is 22 times more expensive makes you look really stupid" and now you want to introduce all kinds of other issues into the argument like FIT's. I have not argued that at this point - wind is the cheapest form of power generation. Without any subsidies of any kind - the cost of wind is falling, and approaching grid parity. All forms of generation get different kinds of support - so the true costs are hard to come by. But - the correct response on your part would be "Sorry - you are correct - I was being very dishonest and misleading to try to suggest that wind power was 22 times as expensive as gas power - I will shut up and not post again - as I have been exposed as a liar." Sadly we will continue to be subjected to your dishonesty on the next post that mentions global warming - or alternative energy - I will try to call you out when you lie.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2012
"It isn't at all surprising that 30% of Americans are absolute fools." I think your number may be way low on that quote vendi - but - one point to note is that an electrical - super high efficiency ground source heat pump can be considerably cheaper to operate than a gas furnace coupled with a lower efficiency A/C unit. So there may be a good argument for certain kinds of electrical heating. plus the 30% tax credit here in the U.S. sweetens the deal.
Meyer
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2012
affecting the temperature and humidity up to 20 km downwind from the turbines.

Link?

http://www.pnas.o...42/17899
http://www.atmos....2011.pdf

And how exactly would this even be relevant in off shore installations?

It's not, unless the coast is downwind and within 20 km.

Somehow taking wind energy out of the system via trees is OK, but if you do it via a rotor its ecological Armaggedon? I don't quite get how that 'logic' works.

If I suggested anything along those lines, it was unintentional.
Meyer
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2012
I'm just saying, erecting dozens of 200-meter structures actually can affect local air circulation patterns. You can't judge the cost or benefit of the impact in a given location without first being aware of it.
And just to emphasize, the effect is not caused by the absorption of wind energy but by the introduction of turbulence that pulls down warm or cool air where it normally wouldn't.
Turbulence is also an issue within an array because it can reduce the efficiency of individual turbines by quite a bit, depending on their configuration.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 13, 2012
"So to state that a wind farm is 22 times more expensive makes you look really stupid"


Think of it this way. If a coal power plant or Natural Gas power plant last 50 years (and they do) and wind turbines last 10-20 years (and I think 20 years is optimistic as there are already 14,000 abandoned turbines in the US) then every 10 to 20 years you need to spend 22x more AGAIN.

So in this case 1.2 billion Euros 10 years from now, and then another 1.2 billion etc etc.

And that coal or ng plant is still functioning 50 years later.

So in fact wind will cost 100X in capital costs.

let alone the grotesque subsidies they are committed to.

The only good thing is subsidies are being cut in every sane country.

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 13, 2012
Lousy reliability

"This is underlined by an analysis of maintenance records, which shows that while service teams for offshore wind farms are supposed to make two scheduled maintenance visits every year, unscheduled visits to many installations are made 20 times a year."

""The classic example of this is the disaster at the Horns Rev wind farm in 2005, following which Vestas is reported to have removed and repaired 80 of its V90 models, designed for offshore use, owing to the effect of salty water and air on the generators and gearboxes, which became corrupt after only two years. A similar procedure has been reported this year, with Vestas' 30 turbines requiring a change of rotor bearings, at an estimated cost of 30m.""

http://www.renewa...stacles/
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 13, 2012
367MW running 21% effeciency = 77MW = 77000kWh

77,000 * 24 * 365 = 675 Million kWh

.1 Euros per kWh = 67.6 million Euros.

1.2 billion for the Wind Farm

So the turbines have to last 17 years.

Add in maintenance and borrowing costs and the wind turbines failing by year 10 ...

Good luck.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2012
Good luck. Well u never addressed the issue that u were being deliberately misleading by suggesting that wind power was 20x more expensive. However - we get it that you personally don't like renewable energy. All of your calculations and personal opinions are irrelevant. The fact is that wind energy is a viable option - as demonstrated by the gigawatts of power being installed every year around the world. It depends who you ask in terms of cost - everyone has a bias. There is plenty of data in this wiki entry http://en.wikiped...stimates - and source documents if you want to do some reading. Fact - energy cost data varies by country - but wind costs per Mwh are competitive. It is also important to understand that wind costs are on the way down. You can argue with reality all you want -it is just a waste of time.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 16, 2012
Well u never addressed the issue that u were being deliberately misleading by suggesting that wind power was 20x more expensive.


As I corrected, taking into the incredibly short lifespan of wind turbines, capital costs will be closer to 100x per MW.

Sorry for underplaying the grotesque waste of money that wind turbines are.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (27) Feb 16, 2012
"Over 30% of homes in the US use electricity for heating." - ParkerTard

It isn't at all surprising that 30% of Americans are absolute fools.

Calling people fools and other names because they use electricity for heating is just a bit much don't you think? Perhaps they live in a place (like I do) where the power is cheap because it is from hydroelectric? Gas is more expensive for heating! This name calling business is why I dont like this site as much as I could. The science information and format are good, but the comments eventually end up dominated by most insistant haters. I am glad for the comment filter, Bye Bye NotParker and the "I hates windpower" rant that follow every breakthrough or report.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 17, 2012
I am glad for the comment filter, Bye Bye NotParker and the "I hates windpower" rant that follow every breakthrough or report.


You should read the article. Some people quoted in the article think I'm right to hate wind turbines.

"British economist Ruth Lea has said that when all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term.)"

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2012
"Academic experts at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, say half of the turbines at four proposed offshore wind farms are likely to be destroyed by hurricanes in their 20-year life."

http://thegwpf.or...arn.html

But go ahead .. close down dozens of coal power plants. Throw away billions on wind turbines that won't last 20 years.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2012
Yeah. Gravy train stalled (or over).

"The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington."

http://www.chicag...01.story
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (32) Feb 17, 2012
You should read the article: "over the longer term, offshore wind will provide a low-cost form of energy if compared to fossil fuels".

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
You should read the article: "over the longer term, offshore wind will provide a low-cost form of energy if compared to fossil fuels".

Pshaw. Reading is so yesterday (and comprehension sooooo last millennium)
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (32) Feb 17, 2012
Ha Ha Thanks antialias physorg, I needed that. The Notparker attitude really kind of bugs me, too negative. In real life I avoid those kinds of people.

After the wind is split and drained of energy by the mean old wind turbine of Satan, how long does it take to reassemble? Are vacuum bubbles going to circulate around the earth forever?

Dangerous beasts, these wind-devils. Peace
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2012
Are vacuum bubbles going to circulate around the earth forever?

You must be thinking of this story:
http://www.scifor...446.html
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (18) Feb 17, 2012
Ah-ha; that explains it.

NP's head is entrapped in one of those vacuum bubbles. :lol:
Excalibur
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 17, 2012
By George, I think you're on to it, DS.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2012
You should read the article: "over the longer term, offshore wind will provide a low-cost form of energy if compared to fossil fuels".


Why? There is 100 years of cheap shale gas available, and then maybe 1000 years of cheap methane hydrates and then the next ice age will be here.

2 mile thick ice sheets will ruin those wind turbines.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2012
Cheap only if you ignore the costs to the local communities and environments, and get access to it at virtually no cost.

You obviously know nothing about fracking and its consequences. Go live where it's happening, drink the tap water that burns, eat the fish from the poisoned streams, etc., and then come back and tell us what a wonderful thing it is.

Until then, you're a total dunce on the subject.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Feb 18, 2012
"You should read the article" - Esteven57

Parker Tard has not time to read the article when he has ideologically based conservative lies to spread.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Feb 18, 2012
"You must be thinking of this story:" - antialias

The death of Common Sense.

http://www.scottl...ard.html
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2012
...after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington."
Yeah because Baby Bush blew 1.4trillion on subsidizing oil wars in Iraq. Hardly a failure of wind energy technology. True cost of oil is something around $300/barrel with all the subsidies.
2 mile thick ice sheets will ruin those wind turbines.
Damn I thought it would be the Klingon Empire.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Feb 18, 2012
http://articles.p...ive-rggi

New Jersey study says taxing plants for carbon emissions creates jobs