Offshore Wind in Crisis! What Can We Learn?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2024
- In the quest for clean energy, offshore wind stands out - not just for its towering turbines which are already as tall as the Eiffel tower and set to grow further, but offshore wind also stands out for its surprising economics. Despite being about twice as expensive as its onshore counterpart, offshore wind is riding a wave of rapid global expansion. What drives this surge in investment towards seemingly pricier energy? In this video we’ll navigate the depths of offshore wind. We'll uncover the innovations making these titanic turbines possible, explore why their energy is more prized, and dive into the tumultuous waters of 2023 that nearly capsized the industry. Can offshore wind chart a course towards a more sustainable horizon? Let's set sail to find out.
If you would like to help develop the Engineering with Rosie channel, you could consider joining the Patreon community, where there is a chat community (and Patreon-only Discord server) about topics covered in the videos and suggestions for future videos and production quality improvements. / engineeringwithrosie
Or for a one-off contribution you can support by buying a coffee ☕️ here -
www.buymeacoffee.com/engwithr...
Bookmarks:
00:00 Intro
00:54 How do turbines need to be changed to suit offshore environment?
01:24 Different types of support structure for offshore environment
03:39 Size
04:58 Corrosion
05:29 Reliability
06:05 Advantages & Cost Offshore Wind
07:13 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of Offshore Wind
08:09 Offshore Wind in Denmark
09:27 Non-financial benefits of Offshore Wind
10:39 Value of Offshore Wind - Complementary Generation Profiles
11:21 Matching Generation with Demand
11:43 Offshore Wind in New York
12:08 Offshore Wind in Western Australia
12:51 Offshore Wind Crisis
Sources:
For data, images & graphs
www.sarens.com/about/news/win...
www.maritimejournal.com/indus...
turbines.dk/
ember-climate.org/insights/re...
www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWE...
www.ukri.org/news-and-events/...
www.reuters.com/business/ener....
www.linkedin.com/posts/aegir-...
www.wbur.org/news/2023/10/05/...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
www.politico.com/news/2023/10...
www.energyvoice.com/renewable...
www.nsenergybusiness.com/feat...
Journals and Scientific Papers
www.lazard.com/research-insig...
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2....
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3404
The Engineering with Rosie team is:
Rosemary Barnes: Presenter, producer, writer
Javi Diez: Editor www.linkedin.com/in/javierdie...
Fatini Nur: Research and production assistant - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Pacific - Playoffs - Upper Bracket Semifinals // GEN vs T1 | DRX vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9cXUFuLLI8E/mqdefault.jpg)
The UK imports about £100 billion of energy a year , so any energy produced in house has a large effect on the balance of payments and national debt.
Don’t you mean “ electricity ? Bad English there , “electricity” is the product of power stations not “ energy” ,
2022 was an abnormal year though.
In 2022, the UK spent about £63 billion on crude oil, petrol, diesel, and other oil-based fuels, with another £49 billion spent on buying gas. The rest was spent on imports of coal and electricity - making a total of £117 billion. In 2021, £54 billion was spent on energy imports, with £48 billion spent in 2019.
As long as the poor get poorer,the Tories are happy.In fact,it's all part of their plan.
That is why they are making the shift to Cando nuclear.
@@kenlydon1395 It's probably the result of who he's been talking to. Most, if not all, European languages typically use the word 'energy' when talking about electricity production.
I was told by a offshore gas worker in Taranaki that offshore wind will be good for his company, good for regional and national economy but super bad for the environment. His reason was the crane ship that comes from Norway to do maintenance is polluting. Then he proceeds to tell me the same ship is used by the fossil gas industry in Taranaki. This is otherwise a very smart person that has been programmed by the industry he works in, programmed to believe crazy.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Wood it be inappropriate to suggest he might have been ‘gaslit’
I have also spent time in oil n’ gas in Taranaki and it’s a common & understandable blindness amongst people with a vested interest in the status quo..
@@electricAB agreed, if by understandable you mean disgusting..
i am somehow thinking that those claims like _salary depends on his not understanding it._ just normalize that disgusting behaviour.. am i wrong?
Do a elétric vessel
@@electricAB No it *would* not be inappropriate to suggest he might have been gaslit.
Wow, so refreshing to get detailed explanations from someone who clearly knows her topic.
It is actually really amazing when I, here in Perth, explain to people how well Solar and Wind Anti-collorate, you see it click for people that have just not thought about it before.
Well the bad news is they don't anti correlate enough and even a few times matters. So lets say there are 30 days a year (its actually more) where Wind is low at night. The problem is you need enough backup to cater for those nights and the NEM (East Coast not WA) runs between 20 & 30GW on average so at night you can get Supply Gaps that are 15-18GW deep and in Winter last over 12 hours ie A shortfall over night of 100+ GW's.
Rethink-x has an excellent study on how to meet demand using wind, solar and batteries. Essentially you overbuild wind and solar so the amount of battery storage need is greatly reduced. By building 3-4 times your energy needs, the number of days where there isn’t enough solar or wind goes down dramatically. The few days where there still isn’t enough energy, you have battery storage for those periods. They show that this system will also be the lowest cost in 2030.
Batteries are getting cheaper with projections being they'll reach $50/kwh in the next 5-7 years. Nothing can beat producing your own electricity and storing it for using it at night.
@@kylekleman That is just way more expensive than a gas generator, let alone the waste of overbuilding. Maybe that would be viable with hydrogen or methane production from the excess production, but the batteries need to be used to make it economically viable. The other hidden cost is the load management. It gets exponentially more expensive when you reduce the amount of base production and replace it with variable production.
Basically the low production days will become so expensive that it is economically viable to install the needed battery power while during sunny/windy times energy will be free or hold a negative price.
@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd With battery prices coming down so much, and manufacturing of them ramping up so much, I can see battery energy storage facilities playing a role here to smooth out the lulls in production when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining.
A nuclear reactor would be by comparison far more cost efficient, constant power and so much smaller, you wouldn't see it
So, let me get this straight. Offshore wind will use oilfield tech to deploy massive structures in deeper waters and be serviced by men in helicopters which will cost twice as much as other available sources of energy for similar regions. Sounds like a winner.🏆
On a sustained basis, the cost of wind (and solar) is actually *_infinite._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 Planned obsolescence...?
Also, needs to be noted that a 5 megawatt wind-turbine uses 700 L plus per year for lubrication of the gearing parts.
The price cap for UK offshore wind (£77/MWh) is a sleight of hand, as this value in 2012 money. Inflation to 2024 money values adds about 30% and it is more correct to use 2024 price cap in 2024 money values, and that's £100/MWh.
The energy market doesn't want intermittent sources of electricity, but values firm on-demand supply. We cannot run a modern economy using wind alone, for electricity generation. We therefore have to consider wind power only as a supplement to something else which satisfies the firmness requirement of power supply to consumers. The "something else" is most likely going to be significantly fossil fuelled as it has to cater for all of the demands of supplying power and balancing the network in periods when wind generation is contributing little or nothing, In this context, we have to ask the question: does intermittent and unpredictable power at £100/MWh reduce or increase the total cost of supply of firm electricity? Invariably, it increases the cost. Firstly, because at £100/MWh it is much more expensive than fossil fuelled power (without "carbon taxes" to hamper the economics of fossil fuelled electricity). And secondly because of all the infrastructure and balancing costs of accommodating these intermittent sources.
It is no coincidence that the more renewable power that is added to an electricity network, the higher customer tariffs to recover the total cost. It is no surprise that wind generation only exists through government-sponsored subsidy contracts. The stand-alone private investment case doesn't exist.
I am not particularly a fan of wind turbines on or off-shore. Nuclear is more energy dense and cleaner. Off-shore turbines still leak oil and require more maintenance. If there are any effects to underwater tonal sonic disruption, it is ignored. Off-shore wind raises residential rates. There is also a call to ban offshore monopiles.
Mining the fuel for fission, is far from clean!!
Hi. "Clean" just doesn't exist in energy generation. At best we can categorise ito clean categories. Wind is only clean ito generation output (no fossil fuel gases etc.). However, just like nuclear energy, it takes a lot of dirty mining and manufacturing to get the plants producing. They also have their own unique waste disposal challenges. Here in SA we are blessed with one of the most stable geological tectonic plates on the planet, so we just put the longlife isotope waste in concrete encased steel canisters deep underground. But wind turbines kill millions of birds every year especially critical migratory pollinating birds, as well as predatory birds that control vermin and pests which destroy agricultural production. And what to do with tons of unusable fibreglass turbine blades? I've seen one such blade graveyard. It is monstrously ugly and toxic to the environment if not carefully designed and protected.
Yes Rosie is clearly impartial and independent and can be relied on to take an unbiased look at the topic. So what that she has made her living from offshore wind for the last 20 years, obviously that has no bearing at all on the position she takes.
The aspect to focus on is that in North Sea, particularly off Scotland, developers were building wind power plants
with No subsidies, a couple years ago (before inflation changed the situation).
Yes that's a good perspective to keep in mind, but typically engineers of her caliber do not need to rely on a specific industry to be lucratively employed.
According to UN statistics around 40% of the world’s population lives
Wind power is great as long as you like unpredictable electricity that costs a fortune.
Wind doesn't cost a mere fortune. Wind, like solar, is *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.
LCOE is inferior to total system cost calculations. Solar and wind complementing each other, on average, does not negate reserve requirements (there's still too many times when both are providing low output). Batteries are not sufficient either given that they're typically only able to provide for 4 to 6 hours.
Hence LCOE is fine if your renewable penetration is relatively low (< 20% of installed capacity). But once penetration gets really high... 40%+, additional integration costs go exponential, and LCOE doesn't account for that.
One of the most interesting video about windpower - thank you!
I found it very interesting as well ......
However ....
Huge solution to a virtually non existent problem
Interesting only to confirm benefits of nuclear.
Great video Rosie! Especially happy with your explanation of why offshore wind seems so popular despite its higher LCOE as reported in Lazard. The cute boat-Rosie animation was also great!
Glad you liked that part, that was the main reason I made the video. I am constantly trying to explain that point in my regular job, thought making a video I could refer people to would be less repetitive!
Well she Lied via omission. Where there is wind, there is no naval industrial presence anywhere else in the world outside of the North Sea due to presence of Oil and Gas naval assets for construction. This an gargantuan cost which is NOT tabulated. Best offshore in the world would be down around Patagonia... Guess what NO ONE is trying to build down in the HIGH wind sea zones of Patagonia which are FAR superior to ANY other region of the world other than Antartica? Wind Turbines is what. Also, no other region(edit I think Argentina Patagonia has some, but I forget their depth) of the world has shallow seas and High winds like the North Sea which automatically incrases cost by a presumed ~50% over that of shallow sea bases, so her stated 2X more expensive is an absurd joke anywhere not named NORTH SEA. Anywhere else we are looking at 3X-->4X cost of on land. Wind also must be present with copious quanties of NG. Other than North America, no one else has copious quantities of NG to balance the fickle nature of wind. Wind is a Northern Europe/Plains of USA and a couple other geographic regions rare phenomena(Mongolia, S. Africa, for instance or Patagonia) with maybe East Africa. E. Africa with the PErsian gulf close ~enough and its NG might work. China is via its Mongolian wind is hoping they can tap their very large hydro network, but even then their Capacity factor for their wind sits at ~24% via their own claims and this is with modern wind turbines. Europe/USA have ~34% capacity factor, but lots of OLD inefficient HAWT's and all their new installations usually hit 50% capacity factor using near identical turbines as the ones put up in inner Mongolia of China just as an example.
It's a cute little boat, but as a sailor - it looks like it's sailing backwards! It looks like the artist copied the outlines of sails from a number of photos and combined them in a way that makes no sense and results in an 'uncanny valley' effect.
@@w8stral I think you missed the point about being close to cities in small or densely populated countries with limited space for onshore wind.
Patagonia and Antarctica have few or no cities, and plenty of space for onshore wind. I'll wager they never develop their offshore wind resources, however vast they are.
Your point is well made that the North Sea has been the first place for offshore wind to gain popularity largely due to its established oil and gas engineering industry, with capital equipment in place and experienced workers. The same applies to the Gulf coast of Texas but there has been no offshore wind boom there because there IS plenty of space on land in Texas, and the wind boom has been onshore.
Gas is certainly useful for offsetting the variability of wind generation, but so are solar and hydro. Gas is not a necessity, it's just the incumbent. For now.
Uh, no, YOU miss the point, when NG is a SMALL fraction of the cost, why would ANYONE with a brain cell put in Wind Turbines? LCOE cost analysis NEVER adds in grid stability, making it a giant lie when you compare to begin with. Vast majority of the world has near Zero wind power potential. Wind potential is exceptional in its Geographically specificity. Same is true of solar. @@JonathanMaddox
That's an impressively information-dense 16 minutes. Thanks for a comprehensive summary delivered in a thoroughly balanced manner. You are becoming a national, if not global treasure :-)
Aww 😊
True. An international resource, given that you started out with videos created in Denmark when you were working there. I still remember your one where you made a working wind generator out of cake. 😊
Never points to the bad side such as propeller coating with sea spray, damage to the marine/mammal life world wide and the number of whales beached since these wonderful 300 mtr towers were forced into the sea bed.
@@trueriver1950 still my favourite video!
Off shore windfarms are good for fish. Trawlers cannot operate in these areas.
Yep and the structure below will be colonised by seaweed and shellfish,etc.
OK for recreational fishing, I hope. @@chippysteve4524
Never thought about that!! That’s good then! (I’m vegan)
I was literally on a repair job in a north sea wind farm between the UK and Netherlands because a trawler damaged one of the subsea power cables. It took 7 weeks to complete the repair. Our vessel was $100,000 per day and burned 20 cubes of heavy fuel oil per day. We also had a mass flow excavator come in on another vessel at the end of the job to bury the repaired cable omega loop.
Multi million pound repair all because of one trawler who's trawl doors caught a cable that had came out of burial.
@@Nada-Mal Wow. I hope the trawler was fined
Every Kiwi who was around in the 80's knows of the Freemantle Doctor. Even if they have never been to Perth.
Yeah because of Wellington is windier.
Americas Cup?
@@LawpickingLocksmith hey: are you related to lock picking lawyer? Just wondering, seeing your handle
There is a system called biorock reefs, basically uses a very low voltage current that causes calcium to precipitate out of the seawater and form a layer of minerals on rebar that is basically food that supercharges the growth of corals and shellfish. I've been obsessed with the idea of that being deployed on the underside of offshore wind turbines so that offshore wind farms also become massive biodiversity hotspots full of coral reefs.
These pilons after some years in operation get cleaned to prevent exactly that growth to occur, as that would increase shear. To avoid increasing risks of failure, those pilons would need to be a lot heavier, and more expensive. The anti-scouring protection at the base can serve as building blocks for ecosystems, and if you choose materials wisely, they may over time counter the harmful acidification process that results from the absorption of CO2 from the air into the sea.
Depends what the structure is, I think; and also the strength of the local ocean currents. The main shear stress would seem to be too come from the wind on the turbine, which is a huge force multiplied by a massive distance, this making a huge overturning moment. In contrast the water forces are probably lower, and certainly close to the base, leading to a lower overturning moment.
But I'm a physicist, not a wind power engineer, and is love to see Rosie's view on this. It's alreaydy possible that i may be mistaken. (AM i allowed to say that in a you tube comment?)
I remember reading that oil rigs add to bio diversity by being a place for various things to grow.
Thanks Rosie. I really appreciate such a thorough explanation by someone who really knows what they are talking about, and cites sources of information. As a retired Aerodynamicist, I have a reasonable understanding of the physical generation of power from wind, and with long experience of stability augmentation of flight control, the automatic control of a turbine and generator is also well understood. But the civil engineering, economic, oceanic, and weather spects that you brought out are real eye-openers to me.
She does not know what she is talking about, she is ignoring the nuclear option. Wind is not a 'renewable' energy considering the cost to repair and replace.
A question to the Engineer. When calculations of cost/MWh are made. Does that include how long they will last? Today a Nuclear power can very well live on for 80 years, tecnicaly for ever since every components can be swapped out in many cases. And better design is coming all the time. A wind farm live for 25- 35 years. In reality much less. Then it has to be demolished and replaced. So you have to build the wind farm many times as the reactor keep running. Costs of maintenance has to be included. But do they consider cost of grid building is much higher for the wind farms then the nuclear plant. And then you need baseload for the grid. And you need additional power often fossils when the wind or sun is not there. In Sweden we have long cold winters, not much sun or wind the coldest period and then the need for energy is peaking. So you get additional casts for wind and sun. And finally nuclear tend to deliver over 90% of running time. Wind and solar obviously much less. Resulting in energy when no one need it and no energy when needed. Toxic waste in nature from the blades, dead birds and big impact on nature is other wind energy-costs. The wind-solar alternative come with a terrible need for area and material, when a nuclear plant is very much the opposite. My impression is that calculations are maybe not made with realistic data. Politics often sounds very naive when speaking or at least very biased. Making bad investments is just bad, and we see a lot of that. And no atoimc waste is not a big danger, and it is relative very safe. The use of coal is killing so many more, right? We must see things for what they are. If we wan't to do good. .
For every windmill, they need a full backup system to produce when the wind isn't blowing. So you really need 2 systems. For a nuclear plant, the grid will cost about the same as the plant. For windmill farms and distributed production, the grid will cost twice as much as the windmills. Windmills at sea will probably last less then 10 years.
China is burning 4.5 billion tons of coal each year - what about that? Anyway, the ocean will eat all excess CO2 anyway. We are dealing with a rediciliouss doomsday sect here - don't try to make sense of anything.
The timescale for finance and implementation is a critical problem for some nuclear power in Europe. Perhaps the offshore electrons can be seen as a bridging supply technology before other fabled systems appear at commercial scale? Fusion, Thorium reactors etc...By the next century (if humans ever get there) the polar regions may become colder and drier overall due to the slowing global sea currents (currently observed), the tropics possibly uninhabitable in parts. The CO2 hangs around a long time: 'Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives'. science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
@@JHawkins-jf6bs RE: CO2 hangs around a long time
That's pure hogwash. The air is in chemical equilibrium with the ocean. If we doubled the concentration in the air by tomorrow, most of this doubling would be eaten by the sea within 1 year, and almost all (98%) within 5 years.
If we remove all CO2 from the air tomorrow, most will be back within 1 year, and 98% within 5 years.
The ocean is leaking CO2 as hell, but when the pressure between the air and ocean is in equilibrium, the leak will stop. If the pressure in the air is higher, the ocean will immediately start eating CO2.
We do not have a CO2 problem whatsoever. It is pure fantasy. No CO2 problem whatsoever in any case.
Solar power, when used as agrivoltaics, removes much of the land area conflict.
Such a thorough job of presenting this important topic, and your graphics make it easier to follow - great job!
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Brilliant video, concise, clear, interesting... look forward to more.
Can't wait for the floating offshore one!
Neither can I, but probably not for the same reasons!
Floating wind is incredibly expensive just to build, but 2 of the 3 projects so far have failed from a reliability perspective, I’ll use US$. There have been 3 commercial wind farms, Hywind Scotland, Kincardine (Aberdeen Scotland) and Hywind Tampen in Norway to supply their oil and gas rigs, LOL.
H Scotland cost $10.97 billion per GW, it was established in 2017 and all the turbines are being towed back to Norway for a euphemistic ‘heavy maintenance’; a mere 7 years and the turbines are stuffed. Kincardine cost $8.9 B per GW, was commissioned in 2021 and had at least one turbine towed back to Rotterdam in 2023 for ‘maintainace’. H Tampen cost $8.49 B per GW and given it’s just been finished it’s too early to say how soon it will be till those turbines fail also.
Bear in mind that those astronomical construction and maintain costs are for assets that only generate 54% of their rated capacity. To put that in perspective, nuclear power in S Korea has a 96% capacity factor.
An interesting and informative video by someone who is obviously enthusiastic about wind turbines as a source of electricity. There are, however, some blind spots that result from that enthusiasm and being embedded in the industry.
Here are just a few.
1. It is an iron law of electricity generation that the lower the energy density of the source, the greater the material intensity. The quantity of steel, copper, rare earths, etc., is very, very high. In fact, if we generated our energy needs from wind turbines, we would probably cook the earth in the steel and cement construction and poison the planet with the toxic wastes that come from the production and dismantling of wind turbines. There is also the much higher demand for copper.
2. That leads to the second major issue. The absence of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of any of the so-called renewable energy sources. There are ISO Guidelines for LCAs and the reason no LCAs have been done that include environmental, social and economic costs is that the myth of so-called renewable energy sources being a panacea to our ecological overshoot and our carbon and toxicity colonialism will be exposed.
3. Whilst addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation is addressed in a small way by wind turbines and solar PVs, many more serious environmental, toxicity and social problems are generated.
4. How do wind turbines help to address the issues raised by earth system scientists (read planetary boundaries, six of nine having now been crossed and all indicators are that things are only getting worse, driven, in part, by the mindless rush to so-called renewables.
5. Renewables is a misnomer. Wind turbines and Solar PVs are replaceable energy harvesting machines.
6. We are already dealing with a massive global plastics problem and the end of life disposal of wind turbine blades is only going to exacerbate that problem.
7. The IPAT identity notes that the environmental impact of humanity, I, is a product of population, P, affluence, A, and technology, T. Until we address issues of affluence (read demand for energy and resources/materials in the form of goods and products) and technology, we are not going to make matters better globally.
8. Earth Overshoot Day is in July this year. For Australia, where I live, it is in a March. We simply can’t keep consuming the planet the way we are doing at the moment. Many have been saying this for decades and things have only gotten worse. Read William R. Catton’s classic 1980 book, OVERSHOOT. then read Christopher Clugston’s latest book, INDUSTIALISM: OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPEMANENCE. And then ask why the neo-classical econ9mic paradigm which is fundamentally flawed still holds sway when better approaches such as ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS offer a more reality based approach.
In summary, it is time to break out of th3 narrow engineering paradigm and produce some videos that are reality based fro every creatures on earth, including the thousands killed every year by wind turbine blades (that creatures include bats, birds, insects).
A frustrated and retired electrical engineer and academic.
Point 2 was my thought. The cost of generation over the life of a nuclear plant vs wind, was this shown?
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
In 2018, they decommissioned a Nuclear Power station near where I live. It was first up and running in 1969. So, almost fifty years for that power plant. Wind turbines finally pay for their prodigious costs after 25 years. However, land based units might last 18 years. Offshore, I would believe their life span would be significantly less. How is this cost effective?
@@craig-michaelkierce1366 precisely.
@@craig-michaelkierce1366 Your not supposed to think.
So, in the USA consumer electricity costs £0.17 (GBP / KW Hour). In the UK the consumer electricity costs £0.45 GBP/Kw Hour). So as the UK adds more and more off-shore windmils (way above the 'average country'), the unit cost of electricity, to the consumer, keeps on increasing. Many businesses have had to leave the UK because of uneconomic electricity costs. This has reduced the number of highly paid jobs and injected serious structural weaknesses into the economy. It looks like the UK tax payer is heavily subsidising the offhore wind industry, at considerable cost.
The problem with off shore wind power is visual pollution and like their land counterpart they can not be recycled. Thank you.
True the blades are not recyclable, but just about every other part is. Vestas the wind turbine manufacturer claims their different models are 80 to 86% recyclable.
Build them far enough away and you can't even see them. Also, many people find them beautiful. Not everyone thinks they are ugly. I'd certainly rather look at wind turbines than cooling towers of coal and gas plants.
Concerning visual aspects... It is prudent to build a lot of this stuff, but Do Not build continuous expanses. That is,
allow considerable visual Space between components of the arrays, so that those who resent the turbine arrays can
look seaward 'here and there' without viewing an endless image of windmills.
What about the Whales ?
@@budbud2509Indeed and the other wild life.
Much better to go with high density energy production from nuclear fission.
Great video from an expert in wind. As a commissioner for a small MA light dept, we have 3MW of onshore wind in town, but we need the high capacity factor of offshore wind to meet our requirements for a non-cabon emitting portfolio. There is more than 40GW of offshore wind on the East coast of US in the pipeline and we know costs will fall as we gain experience and build a supply chain.
This channel is a great find. Thanks for making such informative and well presented videos. Subbed! 👍
Thank you Rosie, extremely clear and informative but as to your last point for consistency in messaging. Unfortunately when governments et. al. give a diktat and a lie then when the truth sinks in there will obviously be reversals and back pedaling. The UK have been old that we HAVE to be zero carbon and that renewables are UNDENIABLY cheaper and will create masses of UK jobs. That failed bidding process alone should put this in some doubt. These jobs will actually just add to a massively over inflated public sector making our energy industry an immensely costly addition to our civil service paid for by taxes and poverty inducing energy costs (in turn destroying local production and economies).
There is a place for these projects in our energy mix but there needs to be more honesty about the challenges and the costs of the unpredictability (helped by offshore), transmission infrastructure, storage, back-ups, environmental impact to birds and sea-life and decommissioning costs and impacts.
Then we can talk honesty about the pace and cost of investment. It may well be different elsewhere but in the UK we are being told that we must do this AT ANY COST as apparently the global sustainability of the planet hinges on our 1% (and falling) of Global emissions as once we cripple ourselves economically the rest of the world will apparently follow us into the wilderness.
Sorry to unload Rosie you do great work but unfortunately the engineering and many other points you make so well have to be viewed through an unfavorable political lens.
As a UK taxpayer how does importing £100+ billion of "cheap" foreign energy help the UK? Hinckley point C got £100 a Mwh for EDF and French taxpayers
...worth pointing out, 50GW's of offshore wind at 32% efficiency factor is about 145TWh's/annum. Current UK domestic electrical consumption is around 98TWh's/annum, but that's relying on around 80-85% gas and oil heating to homes. The only way we'll get 26 million homes (plus a million extra the government is saying they'll build) to run on 145TWh's/annum will be by either leaving all homes running on gas/oil, or by upgrading all existing homes (around 22 million) to current new dwelling building regulations standard with heat pumps running at an average COP of 3... to do this by 2030? That's upgrading 3.6 million homes per year, and installing 3.6 million heat pumps per year (last year we installed 36,000 according to Carbon Brief)... and then also worth pointing out that the electricity will be generated throughout the year whereas the lions share will be needed for winter heating, so you'll be needing to store 72.5TWh of the wind energy generated by the 50GW's generators for up to six months for winter heating. At current storage costs per KWh... that's kind of insane.
"50GW'S of offshore wind at 32% efficiency factor..."
It's called *_capacity factor._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 ...sigh
Jevon’s paradox.
Rosie, that was an exceptionally clear overview of all the issues involved in offshore wind. Thank you! 👏👏I’m looking forward to your episode on floating offshore wind!
Try building and installing these things without fossil fuels.
even with fossil fuels its still better
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431 in your opinion and to your personal goals.
@@davefoord1259 I mean we just need fossil fuel for right now but the goal should be to need less fossil materials in the future
Offshore wind has the benefit of working as a transition option. Infrastructure, like ports and ships and workers can be repurposed from fossil extraction to building renewables. And the inherent "big project nature" with centralization, large investments, complex legal matters is perfectly tailored for those companies that previously build coal, oil and gas plants.
Transition to what?????
@@thamesmud
Poverty ?
With my fuel costs doubled to solve a
non existent problem ......
I can’t help thinking that some of the reason that the offshore projects failed was just because they wanted a slice of the pie of the higher electricity prices.
It (recent abandonment of some offshore projects) was mostly a result of inflation surge, and supply issues for
materials. The projected costs assumed that the trend line of decreasing prices for offshore wind would continue,
which did not occur ... so substantial cost overruns loomed menacingly.
You neglect to mention that most equipment, blades, turbines, etc. come from China where they get 70% of their energy from coal. Similarly for solar panels. So, the costs for “clean” energy are much higher.
I'm interested in Japanese offshore wind so I am looking forward to the floating turbine video.
How about building an offshore-ready windfarm near the coast, and wait for sea level rise to take it off shore?
That strategy seems consistent with most major govts sense of urgency over climate change. 😮
Governments are not fooled by their own scaremongering.
Thank you for the informative video.
Electricity - and its cost - is at the heart of modern industrial economies, and the backbone of our lives. Whenever you hear 'well, it is more expensive, but ...' , stop and think. We, all of us, have budgets. If we pay more for electricity, we have less available for everything else. It's not just what we pay for electricity in our homes. When businesses pay more for power, they have to raise prices. That includes hospitals, electric train lines, airports, and commercial office space. And of course the government - they have electricity bills too. So every one of us - including the poor and working class - have to do without something to pay the increased price of power. When are we going to hear about what people will sacrifice to pay for wind power?
In the UK Aldi supermarkets are the cheapest and have PV on the roof. After its returned its installation costs how much is the electricity? My home PV has paid for itself. All new infrastructure is expensive due to up front costs , in 2011 the UK grid needed £100billion spent but was underfunded because it over inflates prices. Its just another market to manipulate for profit.
Could it be meaningful to rinse off salt dust periodically to reduce corrosion? I mean, as long as the nacelle is well over 10 meters over the sea level a vacuum pump and a cold trap is all that would be needed to distill water. And when air temperatures up there is well below the ocean water temperature no external energy would be required to power the distillation process.
Love your work and integrity 👏 👍 😊
So here in Ireland we have the most expensive electricity in Europe....that's what happened when you have to build and maintain two generating systems the so called renewables and the fossil fuel plants..
Lots of people in the UK rubbish nuclear for being too expensive, but a strike price of £77/MWh for wind must compare badly with £90/MWh for nuclear once you add in storage?
And the reliable availability 24/7 52 weeks of the year. No hot standby needed either.
Standby is needed for wind power.
i guess you missed some costs as well. what is about the build of the power plant, the cost to store of waste nuclear material
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431
Go for Thorium and there is very minimum waste .
But those huge turbine blades were supposed to last 25 years ,
in reality they are done for in about 5 years.
We are still learning on this
Thanks Rosie. Looks like the 'economical unsustainability' of offshore wind is just a commercial glitch. I was thinking recently about when offshore wind blows (largely driven by sunrise/sunset?) and how it aligns well with domestic consumption, which should reduce the demand on storage. Maybe the LCOE should be commuted to the consumer cost to factor in aspects like storage & even energy supplier markups (which home generation doesn't have).
Very helpful, thanks
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the video.
Thank you Rosie!
What about the cost to remove the wind turbine when it's no longer in service? How much does that cost? And who pays for it? Or are the farms just left to corrode for centuries in the sea?
Rhorough and knowledgeable. Thank you
Cost per kWh should be based upon 'feed in', not 'produced' or 'capacity'. A lot of green energy is sent to ground because it doesn't match need.
Well, who should pay for production when the wind isn't blowing? We need energy/electricity even when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Who should produce then, and who should pay? We need to pay for all 3 systems?
Very clear explanation and slick presentation. I would love every village to have a sandbattery and district heating linked to renewables
Slightly odd to put the UK in the category of countries not as blessed as Denmark with offshore wind resource when its coastal waters typically experience 10%-15% higher average wind speeds.
yes that's fair, UK is pretty blessed also!
Thanks Rosie, really informative. It would be very interesting to see the comparison of dollars of energy generated between onshore and offshore wind turbines given the production graphs you showed. Especially given the massive daily price fluctuations.
One comment about the USA - they can't use European ships to install wind turbines there as ships have to be built in US (quirky old law) - which also delayed projects.
It's called the Jones Act of 1920.
U.S.A. should lose the Jones Act. At least initially, allow those robust Europeans demonstrate how their investments
proved offshore wind affordable.
Excellent as always
I've scuba dived an oil drilling platform near Los Angeles - eye-opening to see that each is an underwater skyscraper in a hostile environment. Daunting.
(Correlation MUST be added to LCOE!)
The profile of wind is very advantageous on annual basis in Northern Scandinavia. We rely heavily on hydroelectric (most productive in autumn, rainy season, and spring, snow melt), while we use far more power in the cold winter than the temperate summer. Solar produces well in summer, but not in winter. A bit of nuclear, that chugs along all year, with planned repairs typically during summer.
Enter wind power, which provides most power in autumn and winter, and we have a near-perfect match. Add to that that more Arctic wind patterns don't correlate to patterns in the North Sea (where most wind power is installed), and a reasonably good grid.
Wind also reduces hydroelectric risk, as rainfall varies greatly year to year (as does wind, incidentally, if not to the same degree).
Rosie, Hope the subsequent Floating Platform Offshore Wind post. Will include a section on the possibility of it also generating electricity from secondary power sources, such as from wave energy, not only from wind?
Which would also reduce the correlation of the power output. Increasing its marginal value. And reducing the need for storage for the grid.
Seems like a natural synergy. That would also reduce the need for energy storage for the grid.
Has a submerged floating island, as a platform for numerous wind turbines, ever been considered or tried? Possibly out of a calcium carbonate CO2 sequestering, air infused material? Seems like it would also have environmental benefits too, in terms of attracting sea life too?
This all sounds fine. So let’s start by ridding ourselves of the euphemism windfarm. Let’s call it what it is, an offshore wind driven power station. Let’s get assurance that the components from mining to manufacturing are produced with no carbon emissions, slave or child labour. Installation and disposal of components with no damage to the environments we are doing this to protect. Finally, let’s see some politicians, particularly the Australian Teales put their money where their mouth is and advocate installation of these offshore from their own electorates. Given these simple expectations, I’m behind this 100%.
None of that can be done without emissions.
Great video thanks.
It seems to me that a quantified way of comparing the demand by time of day, with the production by time of day, is pretty essential to have conversations that are productive. LCOE seems like a nearly useless measure, when talking about renewables (or any source that you can't turn on or off at will...but that's essentially renewables).
Terrific as usual. This stuff is so important as we heat up from carbon burning. Lead time is needed. The little goofy sail boat could be better but we can't have everything. 😀
No we need fusion and now not polluting the ocean with more oil trash.
Also an illustration of how the so called economics of renewable energy is dependent on govt. decisions , not just supposedly objective market conditions. Also raises the question of whether these govts. , the Tories in England for instance are really trying to bring in renewables or just look like they are.
In Sweden region 3 and 4 had an average price of 0,64SEK/kWh. In the same period windturbines sold electricity on average for 0,26SEK/kWh. Atleast here too many winturbines produce electricity when demand is low while beeing aunable to produce while demand is high. There were days when price was 8SEK/kWh and windturbines produced 0 electricity. Meanwhile when winturbines produce electricity the national production goes up 20% and price drops to levels where it's not profitable to operate them. Here discussions about windturbines is if any of them are profitable at all (here).
All I have ever read is that, wherever in the world a nation has gone big on wind and solar, the electricity prices have risen steeply as an outcome. 2 prominent examples are Germany, now with the most expensive electricity in Europe and California, with the most expensive electricity in the USA. Despite the theoretical speeches of renewables being cheaper, the reality has proven to be otherwise.
There is a vast amount of cheap renewable electricity in Texas now.
@@Ok_yes_its_me you didn't comprehend the point made: anywhere wind and solar are big on a grid. That is because of the huge sunken costs. Only those who deliberately set out to deceive talk about "cheap renewable electricity" because they deliberately and selectively only speak of "generation cost" as an end-result cost. As if, by magic, the power from wind or solar appears 24/7 at your house. When the real total cost of wind and solar care compared, over comparative life spans, required grid build up and integration, and power backup storage required from the removal of fossil fuel baseload support, the real cost emerges. That real cost always rears it's head, even when an attempt is made to hide it, by the outcome of higher electricity prices. The unshakable rule of "User Pays" can never be denied.
Have you thought of doing a video on the importance of inter country interconnectors?. Here in Northern Europe there is a phenomenon known as "Dunkelflaute" which basically means no wind and no sun. Quite common in winter, lasting typically 3-5 days with a fairly strong correlation over Europe. So, interconnectors in the same time zone don't guarantee black outs. Unless of course we keep dozens of gas plants runnning all over Europe. Our UK government is targeting 40Gw of storage output, which is huge. But they havent said for how long?. (i.e. how many Gwhrs ). The 40Gw of storage output, is about a third of projected winter demand, so to cover a 1/3rd of such demand during a Dunkelflaute would need about 6Twh. On current containerised lithium density that would require 5,000,000 acres or 7,800 square miles. Conveniently about the size of Wales. A countryside littered with 20ft containers. Or will fusion save us all
Yes, northwest Europe has a particular problem with winter anticyclonic highs - it is probably the part of the world where building a completely renewable grid is toughest. If nuclear is cost-competitive anywhere it should be there. Though as Rosie points out, there are relatively nearby parts that do not suffer as much from dunkelflauten - ie the North Sea. Plus as you point out big interconnectors with sunnier climes, ideally in different time zones, help.
Rosie, you may forget that the on ground grid may need to be reinforced in the area where the power from the Offshore wind parks arrives on ground, and there is usually also a need for a converter from DC to AC current. it is usually not part of the price for installing a new wind park, and not in the cost by teh company, this lies on the public distribution and will anyway be paid by the end user.
Is there really a business case for offshore wind with fondations deeper than 60m ? this was one of the limitations highlighted in a wind farm in south west france, where there was a huge debate to move it further out of a marine protected area. engineering company did not want to go further and agrued with a technical limitation.
New York canceling offshore wind projects might have something to do with the success of the city of Montreal just a few hundred km to the north being able to be at 100% renewable for electricity generation with the price that people pay on their bills being about a third of what New Yorkers pay, because of the use of a better form of renewable.
For onshore wind farms in Europe, the issue is not only the availability of space, but also whether it is possible to get to where the wind is. You can't simply flatten a forest or a village to transport +25m long blades. So the cost of construction in the US is irrelevant to Europe because they have a lot of flat wasteland on the plains. Where the plots have almost no value compared to land in Europe.
Another great video Rosie. Very informative. It's such a shame to see this resource not yet being taken advantage along the Victorian and NSW coasts. Concerted anti-wind farm campaigns from big and small media and local NIMBYs are really disappointing. Hopefully this all gets resolved soon and we can start producing clean energy from offshore wind in Australia.
Hi Rosie, you make great videos, I hope your consultancy does well. You deserve it. Just one thought I had. I have heard the Fremantle Doctor was actually the Fremantle Docker as it was useful to dock ships that had sails and no engines. Obviously from a time when engines were not available. I don't live in WA and have no history on this but being 65, I know the English language can change. Anyway, well done with your TH-cam channel.
I am interested in the cost comparisons per megawatt hour that you showed but the resolution was a bit low to see at least of my phone. I wonder if you could add a link to that graph in your description or let us know which one it is of your many references, which are great to have by the way. I'm kind of interested to know how these renewable costs compare to traditional energy. for example, the 70 pounds per megawatt hour from offshore in the UK to coal, hydro, nuclear etc. also, I wonder how these costs translate to what a consumer pays. can you just divide them to get the consumer price in kilowatt hours? finally, are the economics of these projects factoring in subsidies like carbon credits?
I think there is some overlooked science that can envelope what I consider very valid points you have made. The whole approach to renewables has been from an engineering perspective and demanded irrationally by society.
More the subject of a paper and is multi discipline in nature but in essence all life on earth GAINS energy.
This is how plants work. They burn some of the energy they transduce from sunlight which has a max energy density a day variable by weather by photo synthesis for their own internal operation. Thus we have a simple equation total energy transduced /energy used. That is set by the DNA of the plant. That cycle is started in a seed which has three components A packet of building material, mitochondria with the DNA package and a packet of energy. All in herited from the old plant. A bio version of the starting system on internal combustion engine. The seed produces a root and shoot and the building of a new plant begins. Plants are the enetgy source for animals, bacteria and fungi including humans. Our agricultural society exploits this natural energy feedback circuit (it is not a cycle) to power by industrilised monoculture useing mainly grain crops eight billion people. So a field of wheat can be considered as solar collector to supply human energy. Some of that energy will have power the farmer and industrial workers who supply equipment and chemical products to agriculture. So we have the basic equation which powers our society. Total useful energy out of agriculture/total amount of energy used for humans for farming. The energy GAIN factor of our agriculture. This must be greater than one, otherwise the system is not self sustaining. We now have a new way to analyse our full industrial society based on science principles of energy conservation and not the misleading monetary economic system.
When the agricultural gain of energy is sufficiently high it can support more people. If GAIN gets sufficiently high then we can for simp,icity divide people into two groups one is the farmers with energy feedback and the other everybody else. Eventually forming a duel society farmers and every body else. With the invention of energy technology starting with where wheels and wind mills plus animal power we now have third group of people producing energy from technology, electrical oil gas ect. Some of that tech energy is fed back to keep the tech energy sector running and some to assist with increaseing the GAIN of the agricultural sector. So our society has a triple energy feedback circuit.
The rub is just as the agricultural output is dependent on the plant DNA our industrial energy is dependent on the efficiency of our energy transducers and the high density of the energy sources, fossil fuels and nuclear available 24 hr. Electricity generation is a special case as there is a huge multiplier effect from this energy source.
The big problem with renewable energy technology is the source energy density is low and inconsistent and conversion efficiency low and inconcosistent. So the GAIN factor is lower than for fossil and nuclear.
If you look at human population the increases in population correspond to the increasing GAIN of our bio and energy technology. In other words by a natural selection process humans have always adopted energy technology with a higher GAIN factor.
For the first time in human history we are selecting an energy technology with an inferior ENERGY GAIN CHARACTERISTIC. The major energy technology impacted is electricity with big mu.ltiplier effect. If the GAIN drop is sufficient then the implications for society could be far worse than climate change.
The writer intially qualified and was trained in heavy electrical power engineering manufacturing and career in power electronics. Later life degree studies in computer science and multi disciplinary science. The above is later derived from those studies.
I know this is an aside ecological benefit of these wind mills is that they are breeding grounds for undersea habitat. I would assume fishing in these areas would be limited and also fish fish breed near sea floor interruptions. I am not sure if the interruptions are enough in them selves due to my lack of knowledge on the specifics. But any areas protected are a boon to the natural wildlife.
Outstanding informative video. I’d love another video about floating offshore wind.
Other than it not being true: Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas, with base mounts which are NOT present anywhere else in the world other than a reef somewhere maybe. Using Lazards GUESS is absurd unless you think you can get away with it as you are talking to complete ignorants on the topic. Also the oil and gas offshore infrastructure is right there in the North sea whereas VAST majority of coast line where there is wind will have ZERO or near zero naval capability to build in the ocean with the sole exception being the Gulf of Mexico, or Persian gulf, both of which have ~zero wind so one CANNOT double use the existing infrastructure defraying costs. Offshore therefore is ALWAYS projected to cost at MINIMUM 3X if not 4X onshore anywhere else in the world not named(North Sea). Its a joke.
@@w8stralEast and Southeast Asia has pretty good capacity for steel fabrication and ship building. With fixed turbines already a common sight in Taiwan as the first mover in Asia and in progress for Vietnam and Philippines. Japan and Korea only have small area for fixed base but they're already starting, their big rollout however has to be floating due to water depths
@@w8stralcry me a river.
@@w8stral ' Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas' If you wish to make absolutist claims, check your data: ' The 11 Siemens Gamesa 8.0-167 DD wind turbines will be moored at a site 140 km offshore where winds are consistently stronger in water depths of up to 300 metres.' This is Hywind's floating turbine array.
It is admittedly modest, but so is everything initially.
You just made my point for me.. Only in very shallow seas with oil and gas infrastructure all around saving half the up front cost and they have great wind resources. No other region of the world has this other than Patagonia minus the naval assets. And those 11 turbines are a trial to see what the costs are as they have no idea. Claiming they will be great and cost effective is a nice joke. Good one. @@davidmartin3947
"There is no free lunch"
What is the impact of disrupting the natural widflow on a massive scale?
When humans 1st developed the gas engine, we all thought it was harmless. Because we didn't know about the impact of CO2. We didn't consider it on a large scale.
Could we be making the same mistake with wind and solar?
Certainly there is some effect, but it's several orders of magnitude (ie. hundreds or thousands of times) smaller than that of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels for energy, and therefore vastly preferable.
Co2 is the life of everything it's at 0.04% and people make only a very small fraction of that.
The one disadvantage for offshore wind that you didn't mention is that, like Nordstream, it's exposed to attack by the rogue major state.
Thank you for a clear presentation Rosie.
How will the ever-rising cost of land in Australia affect the choices between offshore wind and all forms of on-shore power production?
An interesting look at on and off shore wind power, the idea of floating arrays is interesting, obviously each one would need it's own pontoon, and for a large generator you would need a suitably large raft, just how big a raft would be good to know, also how the blades react to the "gusting" effect as the mast sways in the wind and waves, engineering problems you never get on a fixed site.
Climate destabilisation needs a Construction Engineer solution.
First principles cost estimates $, time frame, materials, manpower, CO2 emissions.
Technology achievable evolution.
😊😊😊😊😊
I had not realized how well Offshore wind complements other renewable energy sources. Here on the East Coast of the US offshore has also encounter NIBY opposition.
imo another advantage that onshore wind has is its ability to be closely located to hydroelectric storage. hard to beat pumping water up a hill., especially here in the US's PNW where a lot of our dams are pretty north of the equator, solar coupled with dams doesnt make as much sense as say in china with their 3 gorges dam which i believe has a crazy amount of solar power which makes it run backwards more than one would think. offshore wind also seems like it is at a bit of a disadvantage in the setting of national security/war where i would expect off shore farms to be easy targets at a time where fossil fuels would likely be at a huge premium
very comprehensive video. recently was driving through an agriculture area and saw a wind turbine spinning out of control likely to do a malfunctioning break. made me think twice about the safety of wind. that and the fire in the EU. pretty rare events all things considered
The omission of the new grid costs in each solution, and the future expansion in 100% electric world can not give the best choice.
Expensive storage is built into the EV battery.
Utilization factor can be maximum if used.
Selfplug-in V2G EVs will be the favourite feature. 24/7 Utilization.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
To reduce corrosion, why not use Bell Lab's 'Intercept Technology' to sacrificially remove corrosive ions from trapped airspace?
Your parting comment regards supply chain, training and port facilities has a huge bearing on the proposed offshore deep-water Hunter 5GW project. The ability for Australia to manufacture the bases/towers and assemble these units in (say) Newcastle would be staggering in terms of: Steel needed ( e.g. 4000 tonnes per unit (Up to 350 units needed for 5GW). Supply chain vessels simply don't exist in Australia - so we'd need to compete in a 'hot' Asian market, the lay down space needed in Port to construct these things ( each one needs a football stadium size to construct a unit) - further complicated by the fact that Newcastle Port is privately leased (coordinated effort?). The reality - is likely that they will be built internationally (Indonesia/Korea/Singapore and simply towed into place with international crews and commissioned by these same crews). Note may of the Scottish floating units were towed, fully assembled, from Portugal. Lastly - going from 0-to-5GW in one project makes no sense - you need a staged and planned sequence of steps - as opposed to the many 'Captain calls' we seem to experience. Hunter offshore wind is Technically doable - and transformational for the local industry if carried out by a smart country (Luck only goes so far). Alternatively it may be a cheque book exercise to sail them in from O/S. I too, look forward to more episodes.
Rosie truly wears Rose tinted glasses where the size and profitability of the oil companies is concerned. Her engineering has no hope of addressing the global crisis we are facing in a timely manner. I wonder if she believes the humanity could be facing extinction ?
Anything on the environmental impact? During construction? Long term? Impact on migratory and resident birds? Impact on sea floor ecology? Fish populations? Anything on pollution (mining, CO2 emission) associated with production and maintenance?
Thanjs for some great info and some not so or omitted info.
When fracking hit the American market the power gen industry was gutted. We lost a lot of nuke stations and dirt cheap baseload coal plants that just couldn't compete.
I don't think that you can in good conscience compare costs or market segments without including these facts or the cons of NG and other generation resources.
It's all rather too complex and dynamic to sum up in any short video format.
Interesting with the anti correlation and capacity factors and daily variation of kwh prices.
The supply side of the market has fully moved to variable pricing even where the retail side hasn't.
Offshore projects cancelled by a major energy company in the Netherlands last month ( March 2024) because they are too expensive and therefor not profittable anymore...
So what? The overall trend is in the opposite direction.
There will always be individual projects which fail or are cancelled, for all kinds of reasons, but off-shore wind as an energy source is here to stay and it's adoption will continue to increase in future.
1:35
Kettle of fish....that's got to be a deliberate reference
That Perth afternoon wind is very often lacking. There is little certainty around the Fremantle Doctor -- and it can make for a night of wretched stagnant heat.
Yes, a lot of grid storage will need to be built for 100% renewable energy to work, but the price of LFP batteries is dropping like a stone and they should last for 10,000 recharge cycles (i.e. 30 years).
@@amosbatto3051 Bill Gates Breakthrough Energy backed a company which is making batteries suitable
for stationary utility service, based on technology from Stanford U, which costs ~ 1/5 the price of lithium ion
batteries (as of 2022). Lithium is best present option for automotive/transport use, due to low density of lithium.
I love the optimism about our 100% renewable future. Maybe the renewables definition should be extended to even safer and lower carbon technologies capacity factors in excess of 95% and fuel supplies potentially extending to many millions of years, and renewed by geological cycles. Fission breeder reactors
Everything we do, negatively affects the environment, EVERYTHING!!!!!!
Of course. But some things do so MUCH MUCH more than others, and offshore wind is environmentally the least harmful way to generate a watt of electricity of all.
That realization is One of several justifications for the degraded state of U.S. infrastructure.
Sure, even ecosystem restoration projects. We can do better.
I wonder about adding gearing to turbines. Perhaps the forces are just too high, but by using a concept of even a 3 speed gearbox, you could significantly increase the safe operational wind speed
Most onshore wind turbines have gearboxes, most offshore don't. The reason is mainly reliability, the gearbox needs more maintenance than other components which is expensive offshore so they mostly avoid it.
Offshore windfarms is a wet dream. The turbines themselves are more expensive but nobody seems to take into consideration the cost of the infrastructure needed to bring this energy ashore. The durability of these turbines are also questionable. A few months ago the German and the Spanish state had to pay 88 billion euros to prevent Siemens Gamesa to go bankrupt. In addition they got state guarantees for an other 165 billion euros. The reason for this was that the turbines did not live up to their expected lifetime. It is easy to take big risks if other pay for the losses. An other thing with wind turbines is that the more of them there are the less profitable they become. Wind systems affects large areas over Europe and when it blows all these turbines produce electricity. That means that there will be too much energy available so the spot price drops and can in fact be negative for the producers. When it is not blowing the producers have to buy their electricity elsewhere to fore fill their obligations. This is what happened in Markbygden One in northern Sweden. They went literally bankrupt due to an optimist deal they made with Hydro Energy back in 2017. The Swedes have done an estimate over the earnings of around 3000 wind turbines in Sweden. This estimate goes from 2010 to 2022. In this period the earnings were 35 billion Swedish kroner while the losses were 47 billion. That is a loss of 37%. I guess that as long as the state subsidies the losses and the taxpayers get the bill it is alright. The Swedes have started realizing the problem and started planning for new nuclear plants. An other problem with wind turbines is that they are asynchrony and that and that you need a big synchronized generator to prevent the electric grid to collapse. Electricity is a commodity that is consumed the moment it is produced. Wind power can maybe produce 15% of the electricity on a grid, the rest have to come from large generators that are either powered by water, hydrocarbons or nuclear. The energy also has to be planned to meet the demands at any time. Big energy hungry industries have to know that the energy they need is available at all times. Shutting down a steelworks takes weeks and getting it up again even more. Think what will happen if a server park has to shut down due to lack of electricity. Will these have priority over ordinary consumers? The environmental consequences are and other issues with the blades killing birds, pollution from micro plastics and leaks of oil and other chemicals, and not to forget how the low frequency noise from these turbines will affect fish , wales and seals. These noises will carry a long distance under water. Just remember that the big wales communicates with each other over extreme long distances.
Great video
Awesome! Rosie for PM!