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.
What will be done with these two when the Beatrice platform closes down?
my press link shows some faq with regard to the platform.
Q34. Why has Beatrice been chosen as an appropriate location for the Demonstrator? A34. The Beatrice oilfield is approaching the end of its lifespan. The Demonstrator Project has the potential to test technology, utilise the power generated to run the Beatrice platforms while at the same time displacing the power supplied by the national grid. It could ultimately lead to a reuse opportunity for the Beatrice infrastructure. The Moray Firth offers weather conditions that are close to ideal for an offshore wind farm.
Commerciality Q35. What are the long term plans after five years? A35. The two Demonstrator turbines will displace power supplied to the Beatrice platform from the national grid for the duration of the Demonstrator Project or the commercial life of Beatrice, whichever is the longer. After this time the turbines would either be decommissioned with the Beatrice platform or incorporated into a commercial development as described below. Q36. How many units make up a commercial deepwater wind farm? What area would this cover and what would be the size of the machines? A36. The simple fact is we don't know at this stage and that this is the very essence of the Demonstrator learning process. A two turbine Demonstrator Project is clearly not a commercial wind farm but will help us determine what one might constitute. The commerciality of a larger wind farm will be determined by many factors such as turbine size and fabrication and tie-in costs. Depending on what we learn from operating the Demonstrator, we may be able to define what will constitute a commercial wind farm. Q37. Will the turbines be removed at the end of five years? A37. While the turbines are prototype machines, assuming they are still operational at the end of the Demonstrator Project they will form part of the oilfield infrastructure and remain there until the field is decommissioned. If the Demonstrator proves successful the turbines could remain in situ and form part of a commercial wind farm development.
Q36. How many units make up a commercial deepwater wind farm? What area would this cover and what would be the size of the machines? A36. The simple fact is we don't know at this stage and that this is the very essence of the Demonstrator learning process. A two turbine Demonstrator Project is clearly not a commercial wind farm but will help us determine what one might constitute. The commerciality of a larger wind farm will be determined by many factors such as turbine size and fabrication and tie-in costs. Depending on what we learn from operating the Demonstrator, we may be able to define what will constitute a commercial wind farm.
As a convenient rule of thumb one can assume that a wind farm will produce on the order of 1 MW/Km^2 on average. Bigger turbines have to be spaced farther apart (up to 15 blade lengths away) so there's no gain (except possibly being able to build taller turbines to take advantage of higher wind speeds farther from the surface).
So, at 1MW/Km^2, Beatrice's 30MW would require 30Km^2 (e.g., 5Km x 6Km) of wind farm. Each of these 5MW turbines would stand in the centre of a 5Km^2 circle (1.3 Km radius)
A 1GW field would have a radius of about 18 Km. Beatrice is 25 Km away from the coast, so a 36 Km-diametre field would cover 80 degrees of the horizon. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
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" William Gibson
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
I hope they don't have ground^H^H^H^H^H surface resonance effect like that:
Or for the side view:
Granted, wind turbine are not spinning in the same direction but every time a machine has such a moment of inertia, interesting things can happen.
:>
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 9
by Oui - Dec 95 comments
by Oui - Dec 815 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 169 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments