Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
How energy intensive is oil extraction on this platform? with 10*3=30MW from the grid, how much oil/day do they pump out?
by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 12:41:55 PM EST
the pdf that brings that information always says internal information, so hmmm.

but this site:

states:
Field Name    BEATRICE   
1975 to 2001    20,372
2002                    357   
2003            270               
2004            212           
2005            185       
2006            106   
Cumulative total    21,502

but the main advantage of the platform is, that it has a powercable te back, and is therefore connected to the grid. This gives it the potential to act as as a relay, in case the whole field is to be build, and/or not enough wind is being produced, also "normal" platforms are energy independent, with their own power generation - will see if I can dig up some figures for that...

by PeWi on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 01:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link and table!

If I don't screw up: 106 000 tons per year (2006) means 290 tons per day, one ton of crude is around 42 GJ so that's 12.2e12 J per day, 30 MW for a day is 2.6e12 J so a bit more than 1 unit of "electricity" energy to get 5 unit of "oil" energy (not counting refining, further transport, etc...).

Of course in the begining when they pumped out 750 000 tons per day the ratio was 7 times better.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 02:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are those Imperial tonnes?

It plays bloody hell with your numbers when you start looking at vehicles and think that the British have super efficient little vehicles that all get 50 miles gallon. Until you realise that one imnperial gallon is 1.2 US gallon, so it's a less impressive 40 US mpg, not 50 mpg like you think.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 02:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Usually "tonne" is written to mean the metric ton of 1,000 kg.

Yet more complications...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I remember it Metric-English inconsistencies has caused at least one space probe to crash into Mars.

The lesson here?

It's about time that all us Anglophones just drop the act and learn to use metric.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that was designed by undemocratic technocrats in a centralised way.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand that there were French people involved as well.

I guess we'll stick to liberty miles.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The legend on the table (from the link provided) says: "Crude Oil Production '000 Tonnes (M3*Density) Per Year (UK Share)", and I took "toe" to convert in energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_of_oil_equivalent

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
oil is in metric tons pretty much universally since the 80's if not in bbls.  (at least that's when I first started playing).
by HiD on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 03:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry, that is the oil they produce, not the platforms energy consumption. I think that is about 17MW (I read this somewhere)
by PeWi on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to yourselft, the platform's energy consumption is about 30MW:
Power Produced - 5 mega watts for each turbine, giving a total of 10 mega watts for the Demonstrator Project.
This is enough power to provide about one third of the electricity need to operate Talisman's Beatrice platform.


Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes that's the source of my 3*10=30MW. But I suspect it's more since I believe 10 MW reported is peak (as the convention is for wind projects IIRC what Jerome said).

Also please replace "750 000 tons per day" to "per year" (on the 1975-2001 period) in my post, the ratio "7" is valid though.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
have 40-50% availability, so an offshore MW produces half as much MWh as a base load generator (nuclear or coal or gas) as opposed to a third or a quarter for onshore wind.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a bit of clarification, you're referring to capacity factor, not availability.  Availability is the amount of time a wind turbine is available to operate, completely independent of whether the wind is blowing or not.    Current wind turbines aim for availability factors of up to 97%, and rarely reach that, though are often above 92% and higher.  Newer turbines usually struggle to reach 95%, and availability is often a function of how much extra service attention a machine gets.

Capacity factor is the percentage of full load achieved over X time, usually a year.  No plant, including base load, achieves 100% capacity factor, in fact, many base loads are in the 70's (though some reach in the 90's).  Nuclear power, for example, often produces capacity factors of 100% while they're operating, but of course like any plant, 0% while they're shut down.  In fact, in the US, nuclear power capacity factors have just reached fractions above 90% in two years since the early 70's, and did not reach above 80% until 1999.  (EIA)

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average capacity factor in 2006 was 89.9%, compared to coal at 71.1% and nat gas ranging from 17.2% to 39.9%.  (This is because coal plants need significant maintenance downtime, while natgas is burned primarily in peakers.)

No question offshore has higher potential capacity factors than on land, because the wind is both stronger and more consistent.  What's also most advantageous about offshore is the lower turbulence intensity. (TI is a wind turbine's enemy number one.)  This is because there's nothing to increase surface roughness for thousands of kilometers, except waves and more waves.  On land turbulence is increased because of terrain changes like hills and valleys, and buildings and bridges, and cell phone towers and carnival rides, and the odd wind turbine here and there.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sat Jul 21st, 2007 at 04:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, wait, are these nominal? Then 10 MW (nominal) = 4MW (effective) and Beatrice consumes 12 MW.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 03:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What I want to know is, what do they use all that electricity for?  Pumps?
by NHlib on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 12:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
gas compressors are even bigger energy hogs.  You either have to push the gas back into the field or pump it off to market.  but pumps are serious users as well.  There's often other processing equipment as well.
by HiD on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 at 03:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series