The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
And what about the density per km^2 ?
Is it REALLY the case that big is always better?
I'm also thinking about the availability of baby ones etc etc
I read somewhere that oil refineries don't necessarily scale the way you might think.
"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed"
Yes, taller is always better, because the farther away from the ground the larger can the wind speeds be while staying within the laminar (as opposed to turbulent) boundary layer. The surface of the sea is smoother than the surface of land, which also helps.
The density per square kilometer is at least 1 MW/Km^2 (effective). Depending on the average capacity factor (25%, 30%, 40% - I think it is larger on the sea than on land) this is between 2.5 and 4 MW/Km^2 (nominal). But this is a function of wind speeds (goes as the cubic power), which are better at higher altitudes and on water (back to boundary layers).
Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Shallow offshore wind energy is much cheaper, but even for the UK realistic estimates are that the area available can't provide more than about 100 TWh/yr out of a total energy consumption of 2700 TWh/yr.
Q43. How much do you anticipate it will cost to develop a fully operational offshore wind farm?
A43. The full development would cost in the region of £1 billion.
The two turbine cost is £35mil - the 162 (actually 163 is the asci code for the pound symbol , which might have crept in when the diary was transfered to the front page...
When I asked my colegues about the future they were very cautious. as described in q44:
Q44. How confident are you that the commercial project will go ahead?
A44. The commercial project depends on many things including the future price of electricity and the performance and learning associated with the Demonstrator Project. It is impossible at this stage to give any definitive answer, but it certainly should not be regarded as an inevitability.
I edited the diary to correct the error with the asci code
the other thing I have not mentioned is of course, that one of the other reasons, why this is being build where it is, means it is not visible from the coast (further than 15km away) and unlike the situation with Jeromes project cannot be built on a sandbank, but needs the seafloor, a (I would suggest - but really haven't got a clue as to what I saying) far more likely scenario at that distance to a shore.
Maybe Jerome could give some indication as to what the overall cost of his project is coming to?
But then you have to take into account the cost of operating these, the cost of fuel (nil), and the cost of decommissioning (usually required to be provisioned upfront for wind projects, I wodner why there isn't such a requirement for nuclear plant, or for all factories, for that matter) for the cost that realyl has relevance, that per MWh.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Oui - Dec 5
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 6
by Oui - Dec 5
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 133 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments