Great stuff. Some people objected due to the fact that they could plainly see them using the Hubble Telescope. Others objected because they had to move 1000's of people and flood the area, an operation which was only completed 10000 years ago. Oil companies have complained that it is an awful idea, but have so far failed to give a good reason why.
If I swap my knifes and forks around that looks quite wrong and out of place but after a while I accept it, or get used to it. My wife has great ideas, bless her....
Oh dear, more research would have shown the true scale of GB (for our foreign friends, GB is Scotland, Wales and England which has a common Grid, Northern Ireland is part of the Irish Grid) wind activity. All 4 Dogger Bank farms are in construction with a new Dogger Bank D and Dogger South in the planning stages. Together they will provide over 10 GW of electricity. Simultaneously 3 wind farms are in construction off the East Coast of Scotland amounting to 2.5 GW and a new onshore wind farm set to be the most productive in the world has just been completed on Shetland, a mere 450 MW but expected to produce 70% of nameplate power. Add to this 25 GW of projects being developed off the Scottish coasts and the 5 GW Berwick Bank wind farm due to be completed around 2030 the difficulties will be taking the power to homes and industry. And I didn’t mention that England and Wales has another 20 GW of offshore wind at various stages of planning and construction. With the 30 GW of wind farms already built GB could hit 70 GW of wind power by 2035-40. And our neighbours in Ireland have identified another 25 GW of offshore wind which if developed and worked in conjunction with GB wind farms would make a formidable resource for UK, Ireland and the rest of Europe. The UK already has about 10 GW of interconnectors with Europe over which surplus wind, nuclear and hydro is exchanged The future is bright the future is electrifying.
Brian, you are, I presume quoting nameplate power figures, currently our installed wind capacity is at about 10%. You don't mention the amount off gas generation required to support these second rate generators, or are you not aware of the deficiencies that, without gas, these wind generators could not run. More wind requires, counterintuitivley more gas capacity and who knows what our demand will be in five or ten years time. The other factor is that if wind is performing well on a particular day, so will Europes wind generators pushing the market price right down. We already import too much at a high price and you must be aware of how variable wind output is. In addition, off shore wind generators lose about 4.5% of their performance annually, so in a short time (In genertaion terms) they will be uneconomic to run. It all sounds sweetness and light when the spin is applied but the harsh reality is they are not that great.
@@iareid8255 I don’t accept that more wind requires more gas to generate power. Wind spread across a wider geographical reach is the answer. And to that end we will have interconnectors to Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Ireland to exchange Surplus power. And X-Links to Morocco. We are also doing well with time of use tariffs avoiding switching on gas peaking plant already. The more we electrify the more we can fiddle consumption, and I don’t mean switching on local diesel plant, I mean managing refrigeration, car charging and industrial use. The UK’s gas consumption is starting to fall and that is without the adoption of heat pumps for domestic heating. Many of those replaced oil boilers.
@@briangriffiths1285 Brian, the grid will not run without gas and the more wind there si the less stable it becomes, gas is what stabilises the wind power. We will end up curtailing wind generation. Gas, as most seem to think is not just a back up when wind is weak, as it often is. It provides inertia, reactive power and short circuit current, all required for a stable grid and all lacking from wind generators. Demand management is another uncontrollable factor teh grid opertaors don't need. It's time to dump wind and get some real generators instead.
@@iareid8255 So we already have an answer to the grid stability issue, battery backed electronics do some, Scottish Power were quick to install that, we repurpose gas generators so that they merely act as flywheels to stabilise frequency and then there are purpose built flywheels as was installed at Blavkhillock. You aren't convincing me nor I doubt many others. Oh and if you want to know facts, look up DUKES, the report for 2023 was finally published yesterday. Gas consumption is falling rapidly. (DUKES Digest of UK Energy Statistics)
Just a couple of things - how much ( for the delivered electricity AND how do you intend to dispose of the huge quantity of waste after the relatively short life cycle of production ( toxic battery waste and massive wind turbine blades) I'd really like to know the cost on that ,and,the planet is just being destroyed by all this renewable waste!!
Don, you have been lied to by the media and still by the government. The only reason these wind farms are built is subsidy and a lot of it. Their production is not economic and cost more than gas even with the carbon tax added. We cannot run our grid without gas, we could run it without wind and get much cheaper electrcity. The reason it is expensive is because of wind and even worse solar.
@@xandermarjoram8622 not only that these are paid for by the government they aren’t building these for 29p KWh my neighbours have an endurance E3120 turbine they receive 60p KWh FIT.
These places are Kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Hopefully they stay with a steady monarchy who all like each other and dine together. ❤
Sunday 3rd of November,wind power supplying just 4% of the UKs energy needs,French nuclear and Norwegian gas combined 20% that just shows you how useless windpower really is and we are subsidising the operators with billions of pounds added on to my energy bills plus what extra we are paying those two countries.
Together with the large number of gridscale batteries already planned wind, solar and pumped hydro will give us power independence. Bye bye oil, coal, gas, hello cheap reliable power.
Thanks for all the measurements using football fields, elephants and buses otherwise I'd have no idea what you are talking about using usual measurements such as metres/feet or kilogrammes/pounds 🙄
Over the last 12 months, the UK grid used more Wind energy than Fossil Fuel, much more than Nuclear. . That's without this project being fully on line. . Eventually? Yes.
I wouldn't think so but if wind farms were distributed around the coastline its unlikely there will be no wind anywhere and with storage, solar and nuclear it would go a long way towards it.
The video said that the maximum output is enough to power 6 million homes in the UK - there are 28.4 million households in the country so at max output these farms could theoretically supply about 21% of the UK's residential needs. But there's another couple of tranches to come on top of the first three.
No. I'm the future, wind power may be able to provide all energy needs for a period of time, but the nature of wind is that it is intermittent. It will always require backups and storage.
Where are all components produced ? There is a death of european production sites and an replacement with chineses components. Is this also true for this windparc ?
@@wolfgangrenner4152 I was just talking about how in the UK politicians promissed a jobs bonanza in renewables to get the general population on-line. The jobs on these offshore UK projects went to cheaper foreign crews from Indonesia, Philipines and India, this cut costs. However young UK work force misses out on apprenticeships in renewables and many experienced UK offshore workers lost out due to being to being under cut. Most countries like Norway, Denmark or Germany ensure expertise, experience and knowledge are retained in country and provide work and opportunities, the UK could not care less. I am all for renewanbles, it's just business and politics in the UK seem to always find a way to fill investor pockets and nobody else's. They also spend plenty tax payers money on this too, not just private investment.
The ownership of the project is split between Norwegian, German and UK companies. The turbines are built in Germany, the HVDC cable comes from Greece, the foundations from the UK as is final assembly of many of the components and installation on site. There is onshore battery storage of 98MW/196MwH using Tesla battery packs.
@@MalcolmRose-l3b It is General Electric Turbines ? And General Electrics has a production site in Germany ? As I know espacially the offshore windturbines have magnet generators. And this magnet generator are an chinese monopol ? Europe has not the access to all rare earth for producing strong magnets. Furthermore, as I know there is no single factory for wind turbine wings in entire Europe. Wings a entirely produced in China ? Moreover it was published, that in Germanys wind parcs the pylons are ordered from China, because our Ampel goverment crashes german steel mills. A lot of steel products are no longer available in Germany. For example armour steel for tanks is imported from Sweden to Germany, so that Rheinmetall & Co. can build military vehicles. So Germany and Europe too has heavily deindustrialized. With respect to the magnet generators, there are nearly no attempts to substitute magnets with traditional coils for excitation. This was long time standard for generators in cars up to nuclear power stations. And wind turbines too. But as I know, all european wind turbine produces use chinese magnet generators instead of running own domestic factories for traditional coil excited generators. In Solar energy production is nearly 100 % in China. And with Wind energy the development is said to be the same.
Amazing project on UK, but this intermittent wind energy (offshore) need energy storing and this need additional expenses on initial Capex. What will be this CAPEX and what energy cost will be for citizens (not cost but everything included on energy bills).
Part of the project included 98MW/196MwH Tesla battery packs - the largest in Europe at the time of installation. They'll be used to minimize curtailment.
@@MalcolmRose-l3b I say this is amazing project, however such projects which will have 3.6 GW power and may generate 30000 MWh energy daily, storing 196 MWh is a drop on ocean, so more storing is needed and more CAPEX needed. Solving the exercise differently, if the CAPEX 1-2 billion dollar will be invested on oil and gas industry, drilling 30 wells which will produce 390 BOE/day will need around 30 tanks with storing volume 500 bbl. The investment on oil and gas industry will be more effective, will cost less and energy security will be very high.
Pumped hydro storage would be good. I know in many countries around the world, this is one of the more common means of storing over capacity of intermittent energy sources like wind power. Finding re-use for old underground and surface mines and quarries would be a great place to start - without having to go creating new dams.
That's great until we find out what happens in the winter when the notorious North Sea storms with their high waves and 160+ km/h winds come by. The wind turbine manufacturers better guarantee these units could survive such fierce storms.
They will be fine. The problem is that the sea conditions are so hostile that the rate at which the turbines has been installed has been severely limited in 2023/2024.
One would like to think that those that installed the oil rigs in the north sea have had some influence on the structures needed for the wind turbines.
Cats kills more birds that turbines "10,000 and 100,000 birds are killed by turbine blade strikes annually in the UK. That's a lot, but it's worth noting that approximately 55 million birds are killed in the UK each year by domestic cats".. How will turbines impact turtles ?
One thing that has never come true about this renewables revolution is that the promised job creation never happened. In the UK, all the energy companies went cheap cheap and hired Indian, Philipino and Indonesian off shore slave labour to install the turbines and develop the sites, locals see nothing of this so called renewables bonanza. Not many young people got apprenticeships to learn about developing off shore wind farm sites, not many experienced native people got a sniff of a job as they will not work for £1.50 an hour. Also Scotland has lots of start up remewables companies harnessing tidal, wave and wind power and doing ggod work with tax payer funding. Problem is any tech with the slightest promise of further development gets bought up by the likes of Siemens, GE or any of the big corporations and the UK sees none of it and the tax payer sees nothing from the investment they made. Renewables is great for a healthy energy mix, but the greed is ruining it already for everyone else.
@joebarrett4353 it's so amazing that our energy bills are going up to fund it because its more expensive to produce the energy and lower in energy density than other forms. The wind doesn't always blow
@joebarrett4353 wind energy is unreliable and is often not windy when it's needed most. Sometimes the turbines have to have electricity transmitted to them to keep them turning.
@@joebarrett4353 I am not a naysayer. But the way this has been developed by missing out the people of the UK so that investors get faster and bigger returns using foreign slave labour is just ridiculous. I am sure there was an issue where a foreign wind turbine crew berthed in a harbour up here in Scotland who were not paid in many months causing a dispute when a UK union found out, even though they were on rock bottom wages. This means at a native level we will lack people with skills and experience to take this further ourselves, whole generations missing out on training and know how, just ridiculous. As for wind power, people saying they put power into them to keep them turning is true to a degree, this is to get them up to speed to match the grid frequency, once they are on the grid they produce power, not consume it 🤣. Wind turbines do produce plentiful power when sited correctly, especially the North Sea and many sites in Scotland. They actually have to switch them off up here in Scotland a lot of the time as they can over load the grid, if another region requires more power say for industrial plant going online then the grid will put more turbines on line to take the load. One of the issues is with the grid itself not currently quite being flexible enough to support renewables fully, they are slowly making the grid more adaptable with more pumped hydro schemes and power banks to store excess electricity. Again my main gripe is the political lies on all sides about renewable jobs bonanza that never happened due to off-shoring major infrastructure projects with very cheap foreign labour. I do not work in the renewables industry but follow it as it is new, interesting and evolving quickly.
Did you watch the video? Blades? Built in the UK. Steel? Wales. Turbines? General Electric. Installation of the foundations? Vessels from Rotterdam. You MIGHT see the similarity to Oil rigs? A great way to transition from dirty to clean? Cheap labour? What ARE you talking about?
@@WelshGuitarDude "The people are not paying less in their bills" Well I live in the UK and I can confirm that I am paying less for my electricity. And the Dogger Bank installation featured here is going to add to lower prices. The high prices for energy in the UK were caused by high gas prices not wind energy prices.
Rubbish! You are talking out of your backside. Higher prices of electricity were caused by high gas prices. Try doing some homework before you start typing. It's not that difficult!
That's because there arn't millions of birds killed by Wind Turbines. Its a silly meme for silly people to believe. If you are worried about birds campaign against cats. They are the biggest killers of birds by far but forget Wind Farms as they kill so few its not worth mentioning.
Not nearly that many. This is a fossil fuel narrative you are pushing. Here are stats from the US on unnatural causes of bird deaths overall: 2.4-billion birds killed by domestic cats alone per year. Or 599-million bird deaths from building glass collision, Or 214.5-million by collisions with vehicles. Or the billions more birds (worldwide) that will be killed when their habitats are destroyed by climate change. Get the picture?
I was part of the initial geophysical and environmental survey in 2010-2012 across the whole Dogger Bank area. A thorough multi-year bird survey was conducted, analysing and recording migratory paths, bird species, numbers, and - crucially - flying height. I don't know the results of the survey, but suffice to say the work was done and there is data out there that has been taken into account when placing these turbines.
We’ll see about that. This is just the start. But you make it sound like it is not even worth trying. In any case, even if the UK doesn’t get to 100% renewable energy share, what about if it gets close? That is still a big deal.
@@ewadge its literally impossible unless we have serious battery storage technology. Renewables are an addition, if we want to reduce CO2 we will have to have nuclear as the backbone of power with renewables sprinkled on top which is what the UK is aiming to do.
@@WelshGuitarDude I disagree and after the financial disaster which is Hinkley Point C I doubt that a single new Nuclear Power station will ever be built in the UK.
@@ewadge If thats the case then we will be using natural gas for another half century for our power needs at the very least. Unless we import our power needs from far away but that will make us susceptible for inflation again.
The real waste is the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant. Start in 2017 and is estimated to be completed in 2031…maybe. 8bn pounds over budget. 32.7bn pounds in total, maybe more.
It's private sector money at a guaranteed strike price less than any other generation. This project will generate significant tax revenue for the government and save taxpayers money, and spare us importing costly foreign energy. Go back to sleep boomer. Let the adults work.
Wind power has it's downsides... but it is far better than continuing to burn fossil fuels. The environmental vandalism from fossil fuels is tougher to see due to it's slow effect over time.
You should see the trawl scars on the Dogger Bank... it's been scraped clean. One extra bonus these turbines will have is that they will stop trawlers hoovering up anything they can find, and allow a safe haven for fish, hopefully allowing our vastly depleted fish stocks in the North Sea to recover. Also, if you're against offshore wind, what's your stance on offshore oil? At least if a wind turbine catches fire it doesn't cause catastrophic environmental damage and potential loss of life, unlike an oil rig
What a waste of time, space and taxpayers money. Electricity is a commodity that is produced at the same moment it is created. That is not possible with wind energy since it is always dependent of the weather. If there is too much wind there is overproduction and if there is little or no wind the energy has to be brought from an other source. The industry needs stable and predictable energy and that can only be achieved with large generators. Then you are left with hydropower, fossil fuel or nuclear power. If you don’t have one of these you will have extreme price variations, unstable power supply and in general extreme prices of electricity. Your industry will move to countries where they get cheap and reliable energy and all UK is left with is the enormous expenses the taxpayers have to cover for. Good luck with that.
@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd The answer to that is very simple. It is nuclear power. Contrary to what a lot of people think, nuclear is very safe. In fact it has together with solar power the lowest mortality rate of any energy production. The three most known nuclear accidents Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island was in reality hydrogen explosions because they lost cooling of the reactor. When water hits temperatures above 700 degrees centigrade the water molecules split and large amounts of hydrogen is generated. With them forth generation of reactors this is not longer an issue. Specially the molten salt reactors are extremely safe. First of all there is no water present in the reactor but instead molten salt at a temperature up to 700 degrees. There is hardly any pressure in the system unlike water where you will have a pressure from 75 to 150 bar in the superheated steam. Should there be a leak in the system the salt will solidify when the temperature gets below 500 degrees and the radioactive material will remain in the plant. It will not take up much space and can be scaled to needs. Copenhagen Atomics are developing reactors that are placed in units similar to 40 feet containers. Unlike traditional reactors these are not dependent of large amounts of cooling water and can be set up anywhere. Should things go wrong and they loose control of the process a melting plug will melt and the radioactive material will be drained into a drain tank by gravity at around 800 degrees and will be cooled there. If the melting plug fails for some reason the process will stop by itself at around 1100 degrees because the distance between the molecules will be too far. The control rods are held up electro magnetic and if there is a power failure they will fall down by gravity and stop the process completely. Since it uses molten salt to circulate the radioactive material and not rods it does not have to be shut down to replace used fuel. These reactors can run on both thorium and uranium and can be used to burn down nuclear waste and plutonium. In fact it can get 10 times more energy out of waste from existing nuclear plants. The waste from these reactors only needs to be stored for 300 years before they are completely safe to be around. They produce heat and this heat can be used for a number other purposes other than electricity production. Desalinization plants and various refining processes are just a few. While the salt is circulating you can extract useful isotopes from that can be used in cancer treatments and similar. What about the price for plants and the electricity they produce? That can be very small since they can be series produced on an assembly line. One lump of thorium the size of a tennis ball contains enough energy to the needs of a human from new born to 100 years old. With the production of electricity near to where it is consumed you will also need a lesser electrical grid. Wind and solar energy is a hype. In Sweden they have calculated they have had an annual loss of 37% since 2017. I don’t know any other business that could exist with such losses but then again there are none other business with similar guarantees from governments and EU. Due to that they get loans at extremely low interest rates because it is no risks to the bank and the money they get they can lend out to daughter companies in other countries and skim out the difference in interest rates. It is easy to gamble with money when others have to pay for losses. People are easily fooled, specially if you label something as green and claim that it will save the climate. A fool and his or hers money often goes different ways.
@@runedahl1477 Nuclear power failed the world and did not even come close to its 1950s promise of "energy too cheap to meter". If nuclear had come close, we wouldn't be so deep down the climate change hole we are in now. The next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to build a *single* large nuclear power plant. Constructing new nuclear power plants will have essentially zero impact on the amounts of energy needed to displace enough fossil fuels during this critical period. Look at the tremendous cost and overruns of the latest nuclear power plants like Alabama Vogtle and UK Hinkley C. With those *billions* over-budget and *years* over-schedule, these are likely to be the last nuclear power plants built in these countries. These cost and schedule overruns are actually par for the course with commercial nuclear power. Every dollar spent on nuclear during this time actually delays the worldwide energy transition. The simplest answer is sun & wind from the cosmically large fusion power plant we have in the sky. All the combined fissile and fossil energy that ever existed on Earth would amount to only a bucket in an ocean compared to amounts of energy we get from our host star. Commercial nuclear power will be gone from the terrestrial grid in about 50-years' time. It's simply the wrong tool for the job: too small in scale, too slow in construction, and too costly. But nuclear will remain in small-scale forms where it excels in like: military, scientific, nuclear medicine, and deep-space exploration.
@@beyondfossil Nuclear energy is coming whether you like it or not.Already in the fifties did they start with molten salt reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They solved most of the technical issues and did all the scientific work on this type of reactor. In September 2021 the Chinese started a test project in the Gobi desert based on the knowledge from Oak Ridge. Their plan is to start mass production of reactors from 2030. When they started with nuclear power production one of the things they were looking for was an efficient way to produce plutonium for bombs and molten salt reactors are not very suitable for that. However they are very suitable for burning nuclear waste. A nuclear plant is expensive to build but with a lifetime expectancy of 60 to 80 years they will pay off in the long run. Nobody knows how long a wind farm will last. I saw a movie from Sweden regarding major failures on wind turbines and they basically had one every month the last years. This was major things such as blades falling off and fires. The situation is so bad that the German and the Spanish government had to bail out Siemens Gamesa with a whopping sum of 88 billion euros. It addition they guaranteed 165 billion euros in state guarantee. The stock price of SG stocks fell with 90%. SG is one of the largest producers of wind turbines in the world and the reason for the big loss was that the quality of the turbines. The simply failed long before the expected lifespan. When calculating the costs of putting up wind turbines they never included the costs of putting up the grid . This cost a lot more than building and putting up the turbines. Offshore you can multiply the cost by five compared to that of a land based wind farm. There are plenty of uranium in the world and even more thorium. It will last ten thousands of years. This gives the generations that comes after us plenty of time to figure out nuclear fusion. One ball of thorium the size of a tennis ball contains enough energy to cover all the needs of a human from birth to the age of 100 years. A ball like this doesn’t cost much. The problem with wind and solar energy is that they only produce electricity when the weather allows and the electricity they produce is of low quality because the sinus curve fluctuates too much. When the weather allows they produce too much and when there is no wind or sun they have to get energy from other sources. This means hydroelectric, nuclear or fossil fuel. You don’t want to emit carbon dioxide so fossil fuel is out of the question. You can’t build a hydroelectric power everywhere. The topography of the landscape and available amount of water limits that. Forget about batteries,hydrogen production, flywheels, gravity storage or heat silos. They are expensive and very unpractical. Besides they will only last a short time. What you are left with is nuclear power. Most of the energy in a grid have to come from a stable and plan able source. That means big generators that can provide a stable sinus curve that is in sync with the consumption. Electricity has to be consumed the same moment it is created. Electricity should be considered as one big machine. Right now too many of the countries with a lot of wind power have fossil fuel plants standing by for those days when the wind is not blowing, often coal fired plants. How good is that for the climate? An other thing those that advocates for wind power never talks about is the third world. It will not help the climate if we destroy our nature and bankrupt all our power hungry industries. People in the third world wants the same standard of living as we have. A key contribution to this is plenty of cheap electricity. To get there they built the cheapest form of electricity production they can and that is coal fired power plants. Right now there are about 2000 such plants under construction in third world countries with a large population. About one third of the world’s population falls into this category. Would it not be nice if we can provide them with cheap and reliable emissions free energy. Right now there are about 80 different companies and countries that are working on various nuclear projects. I am quite convinced that some of them will make it. If there is a will things can be achieved. As an example I could mention the ozone layer. When was the last time you heard something in the news regarding the ozone layer?
@@runedahl1477 SMR will not save dying commercial utility-scale nuclear. SMR comes with its own long list of problems and molten salts introduces other complications. More importantly, to get the advertised low cost per MWh would actually require building SMR units in volumes of 10,000+ units. The factories for building at this scale don't exist and building such a mega-factory would be a challenge in itself. Unit volumes below this would actually mean SMR costs more per MWh than standard nuclear. There's overlapping fixed overhead in operations and manufacturing for each SMR unit that don't exist for large-scale nuclear. In its long 70-years of operation, commercial nuclear only powers 10% of the world's grids and that number is falling. Almost every nuclear power plant construction has been marred with being *billions* over-budget and *years* over-schedule. Nuclear power the longest running joke in the energy industry.
Great stuff. Some people objected due to the fact that they could plainly see them using the Hubble Telescope.
Others objected because they had to move 1000's of people and flood the area, an operation which was only completed 10000 years ago.
Oil companies have complained that it is an awful idea, but have so far failed to give a good reason why.
Time will tell who's right
If I swap my knifes and forks around that looks quite wrong and out of place but after a while I accept it, or get used to it. My wife has great ideas, bless her....
Because they are effin useless see above.
Oh dear, more research would have shown the true scale of GB (for our foreign friends, GB is Scotland, Wales and England which has a common Grid, Northern Ireland is part of the Irish Grid) wind activity. All 4 Dogger Bank farms are in construction with a new Dogger Bank D and Dogger South in the planning stages. Together they will provide over 10 GW of electricity. Simultaneously 3 wind farms are in construction off the East Coast of Scotland amounting to 2.5 GW and a new onshore wind farm set to be the most productive in the world has just been completed on Shetland, a mere 450 MW but expected to produce 70% of nameplate power. Add to this 25 GW of projects being developed off the Scottish coasts and the 5 GW Berwick Bank wind farm due to be completed around 2030 the difficulties will be taking the power to homes and industry. And I didn’t mention that England and Wales has another 20 GW of offshore wind at various stages of planning and construction. With the 30 GW of wind farms already built GB could hit 70 GW of wind power by 2035-40. And our neighbours in Ireland have identified another 25 GW of offshore wind which if developed and worked in conjunction with GB wind farms would make a formidable resource for UK, Ireland and the rest of Europe. The UK already has about 10 GW of interconnectors with Europe over which surplus wind, nuclear and hydro is exchanged The future is bright the future is electrifying.
Brian,
you are, I presume quoting nameplate power figures, currently our installed wind capacity is at about 10%.
You don't mention the amount off gas generation required to support these second rate generators, or are you not aware of the deficiencies that, without gas, these wind generators could not run. More wind requires, counterintuitivley more gas capacity and who knows what our demand will be in five or ten years time.
The other factor is that if wind is performing well on a particular day, so will Europes wind generators pushing the market price right down. We already import too much at a high price and you must be aware of how variable wind output is.
In addition, off shore wind generators lose about 4.5% of their performance annually, so in a short time (In genertaion terms) they will be uneconomic to run.
It all sounds sweetness and light when the spin is applied but the harsh reality is they are not that great.
@@iareid8255 I don’t accept that more wind requires more gas to generate power. Wind spread across a wider geographical reach is the answer. And to that end we will have interconnectors to Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Ireland to exchange
Surplus power. And X-Links to Morocco. We are also doing well with time of use tariffs avoiding switching on gas peaking plant already. The more we electrify the more we can fiddle consumption, and I don’t mean switching on local diesel plant, I mean managing refrigeration, car charging and industrial use. The UK’s gas consumption is starting to fall and that is without the adoption of heat pumps for domestic heating. Many of those replaced oil boilers.
@@briangriffiths1285 Brian,
the grid will not run without gas and the more wind there si the less stable it becomes, gas is what stabilises the wind power. We will end up curtailing wind generation.
Gas, as most seem to think is not just a back up when wind is weak, as it often is. It provides inertia, reactive power and short circuit current, all required for a stable grid and all lacking from wind generators.
Demand management is another uncontrollable factor teh grid opertaors don't need.
It's time to dump wind and get some real generators instead.
@@iareid8255 So we already have an answer to the grid stability issue, battery backed electronics do some, Scottish Power were quick to install that, we repurpose gas generators so that they merely act as flywheels to stabilise frequency and then there are purpose built flywheels as was installed at Blavkhillock. You aren't convincing me nor I doubt many others. Oh and if you want to know facts, look up DUKES, the report for 2023 was finally published yesterday. Gas consumption is falling rapidly. (DUKES Digest of UK Energy Statistics)
Just a couple of things - how much ( for the delivered electricity AND how do you intend to dispose of the huge quantity of waste after the relatively short life cycle of production ( toxic battery waste and massive wind turbine blades)
I'd really like to know the cost on that ,and,the planet is just being destroyed by all this renewable waste!!
I loved that, thank you for great editing
I worked on this project, making the Halladle X, and now the HVDC
The wind farm at Dogger Bank (not to be confused with Guildford) will be one of the largest in the world.
humanity has yet to begin to tap wind power.
You are still using whale oil lamps I guess.
Great!
I do wonder how long the steel bases of these turbines will last before rotting out? They look like rolled steel.
Considering how expensive electricity is in the UK, this wind farm will pay it's cost in no time.
Don,
you have been lied to by the media and still by the government. The only reason these wind farms are built is subsidy and a lot of it. Their production is not economic and cost more than gas even with the carbon tax added.
We cannot run our grid without gas, we could run it without wind and get much cheaper electrcity.
The reason it is expensive is because of wind and even worse solar.
This is why electricity is so expensive in the UK!
@@kevxsi16v Electricity is expensive because it is pinned to the price of gas.
@@xandermarjoram8622 not only that these are paid for by the government they aren’t building these for 29p KWh my neighbours have an endurance E3120 turbine they receive 60p KWh FIT.
The pictures of the turbines with the legs that look like cages at the beginning are not Dogger Bank.
Challenge: Say how large and heavy something is without comparing to double decker buses and elephants.
Awesome
These places are Kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Hopefully they stay with a steady monarchy who all like each other and dine together. ❤
Hardly anything was made in the UK so it's a win win to the EU again
I need subtitles with that accent
Yes even the voice over wasn't UK produced
Sunday 3rd of November,wind power supplying just 4% of the UKs energy needs,French nuclear and Norwegian gas combined 20% that just shows you how useless windpower really is and we are subsidising the operators with billions of pounds added on to my energy bills plus what extra we are paying those two countries.
Together with the large number of gridscale batteries already planned wind, solar and pumped hydro will give us power independence. Bye bye oil, coal, gas, hello cheap reliable power.
It will take years to make a money and when it’s to windy they’ll close it down
gotta semi over this wind thing
Thanks for all the measurements using football fields, elephants and buses otherwise I'd have no idea what you are talking about using usual measurements such as metres/feet or kilogrammes/pounds 🙄
Can the UK run on 100% wind eneregy?
Over the last 12 months, the UK grid used more Wind energy than Fossil Fuel, much more than Nuclear.
.
That's without this project being fully on line.
.
Eventually? Yes.
I wouldn't think so but if wind farms were distributed around the coastline its unlikely there will be no wind anywhere and with storage, solar and nuclear it would go a long way towards it.
The video said that the maximum output is enough to power 6 million homes in the UK - there are 28.4 million households in the country so at max output these farms could theoretically supply about 21% of the UK's residential needs. But there's another couple of tranches to come on top of the first three.
Thats just a single uk wind farm. There are many more@user-fm6ns5nb4j
No. I'm the future, wind power may be able to provide all energy needs for a period of time, but the nature of wind is that it is intermittent. It will always require backups and storage.
Where are all components produced ? There is a death of european production sites and an replacement with chineses components. Is this also true for this windparc ?
@@wolfgangrenner4152 I was just talking about how in the UK politicians promissed a jobs bonanza in renewables to get the general population on-line. The jobs on these offshore UK projects went to cheaper foreign crews from Indonesia, Philipines and India, this cut costs. However young UK work force misses out on apprenticeships in renewables and many experienced UK offshore workers lost out due to being to being under cut. Most countries like Norway, Denmark or Germany ensure expertise, experience and knowledge are retained in country and provide work and opportunities, the UK could not care less. I am all for renewanbles, it's just business and politics in the UK seem to always find a way to fill investor pockets and nobody else's. They also spend plenty tax payers money on this too, not just private investment.
The ownership of the project is split between Norwegian, German and UK companies. The turbines are built in Germany, the HVDC cable comes from Greece, the foundations from the UK as is final assembly of many of the components and installation on site. There is onshore battery storage of 98MW/196MwH using Tesla battery packs.
@@MalcolmRose-l3b It is General Electric Turbines ? And General Electrics has a production site in Germany ? As I know espacially the offshore windturbines have magnet generators. And this magnet generator are an chinese monopol ? Europe has not the access to all rare earth for producing strong magnets. Furthermore, as I know there is no single factory for wind turbine wings in entire Europe. Wings a entirely produced in China ? Moreover it was published, that in Germanys wind parcs the pylons are ordered from China, because our Ampel goverment crashes german steel mills. A lot of steel products are no longer available in Germany. For example armour steel for tanks is imported from Sweden to Germany, so that Rheinmetall & Co. can build military vehicles. So Germany and Europe too has heavily deindustrialized. With respect to the magnet generators, there are nearly no attempts to substitute magnets with traditional coils for excitation. This was long time standard for generators in cars up to nuclear power stations. And wind turbines too. But as I know, all european wind turbine produces use chinese magnet generators instead of running own domestic factories for traditional coil excited generators. In Solar energy production is nearly 100 % in China. And with Wind energy the development is said to be the same.
Amazing project on UK, but this intermittent wind energy (offshore) need energy storing and this need additional expenses on initial Capex. What will be this CAPEX and what energy cost will be for citizens (not cost but everything included on energy bills).
Part of the project included 98MW/196MwH Tesla battery packs - the largest in Europe at the time of installation. They'll be used to minimize curtailment.
Uk has 40% of the wind in Europe
@@MalcolmRose-l3b I say this is amazing project, however such projects which will have 3.6 GW power and may generate 30000 MWh energy daily, storing 196 MWh is a drop on ocean, so more storing is needed and more CAPEX needed. Solving the exercise differently, if the CAPEX 1-2 billion dollar will be invested on oil and gas industry, drilling 30 wells which will produce 390 BOE/day will need around 30 tanks with storing volume 500 bbl. The investment on oil and gas industry will be more effective, will cost less and energy security will be very high.
Pumped hydro storage would be good. I know in many countries around the world, this is one of the more common means of storing over capacity of intermittent energy sources like wind power. Finding re-use for old underground and surface mines and quarries would be a great place to start - without having to go creating new dams.
@@kevinchallinor9116 And that's before you count that emanating from politicians...
GW
That's great until we find out what happens in the winter when the notorious North Sea storms with their high waves and 160+ km/h winds come by. The wind turbine manufacturers better guarantee these units could survive such fierce storms.
They will be fine. The problem is that the sea conditions are so hostile that the rate at which the turbines has been installed has been severely limited in 2023/2024.
One would like to think that those that installed the oil rigs in the north sea have had some influence on the structures needed for the wind turbines.
I bet they have no thought of that, DOH!
Doggies indeed money grab greed is evil destructive
For shame! What a waste of money on something so hideous.
Why did you add this stupid music ?
How many birds will die? Turtles in the North Sea??? Right....
Cats kills more birds that turbines "10,000 and 100,000 birds are killed by turbine blade strikes annually in the UK. That's a lot, but it's worth noting that approximately 55 million birds are killed in the UK each year by domestic cats".. How will turbines impact turtles ?
Most expensive electricity in the world. And turbines are Made in China. So, totally stupid project.
Most expensive electricity in the world? No lies. Turbines made in China? No lies. Quit the lies and the FUD.
Where do you get your "facts" from? Donald Trump? Or do make up "facts" to suit your little world? What does your psychiatrist say about this?
@@SimonEllwood It's worrying when you realise we're the same species as this one isn't it?
I think they are made by Siemens in Germany or elsewhere on the European mainland.
One thing that has never come true about this renewables revolution is that the promised job creation never happened. In the UK, all the energy companies went cheap cheap and hired Indian, Philipino and Indonesian off shore slave labour to install the turbines and develop the sites, locals see nothing of this so called renewables bonanza. Not many young people got apprenticeships to learn about developing off shore wind farm sites, not many experienced native people got a sniff of a job as they will not work for £1.50 an hour. Also Scotland has lots of start up remewables companies harnessing tidal, wave and wind power and doing ggod work with tax payer funding. Problem is any tech with the slightest promise of further development gets bought up by the likes of Siemens, GE or any of the big corporations and the UK sees none of it and the tax payer sees nothing from the investment they made. Renewables is great for a healthy energy mix, but the greed is ruining it already for everyone else.
There are always the naysayers. Can you not just celebrate this amazing technology?
@joebarrett4353 it's so amazing that our energy bills are going up to fund it because its more expensive to produce the energy and lower in energy density than other forms. The wind doesn't always blow
@joebarrett4353 wind energy is unreliable and is often not windy when it's needed most. Sometimes the turbines have to have electricity transmitted to them to keep them turning.
@@joebarrett4353 I am not a naysayer. But the way this has been developed by missing out the people of the UK so that investors get faster and bigger returns using foreign slave labour is just ridiculous. I am sure there was an issue where a foreign wind turbine crew berthed in a harbour up here in Scotland who were not paid in many months causing a dispute when a UK union found out, even though they were on rock bottom wages. This means at a native level we will lack people with skills and experience to take this further ourselves, whole generations missing out on training and know how, just ridiculous. As for wind power, people saying they put power into them to keep them turning is true to a degree, this is to get them up to speed to match the grid frequency, once they are on the grid they produce power, not consume it 🤣. Wind turbines do produce plentiful power when sited correctly, especially the North Sea and many sites in Scotland. They actually have to switch them off up here in Scotland a lot of the time as they can over load the grid, if another region requires more power say for industrial plant going online then the grid will put more turbines on line to take the load. One of the issues is with the grid itself not currently quite being flexible enough to support renewables fully, they are slowly making the grid more adaptable with more pumped hydro schemes and power banks to store excess electricity. Again my main gripe is the political lies on all sides about renewable jobs bonanza that never happened due to off-shoring major infrastructure projects with very cheap foreign labour. I do not work in the renewables industry but follow it as it is new, interesting and evolving quickly.
Did you watch the video?
Blades?
Built in the UK.
Steel?
Wales.
Turbines?
General Electric.
Installation of the foundations?
Vessels from Rotterdam.
You MIGHT see the similarity to Oil rigs? A great way to transition from dirty to clean?
Cheap labour?
What ARE you talking about?
Wasted money, that is why England has expensive energy
The latest offshore wind costs less than £0.04 per kWh. That is cheap.
You would hate to see what it would cost without, yes installation is expensive but energy produced is CHEAP
@@NeilGrahamShaw The people are not paying less in their bills so its cost are irrelevant to the average person.
@@WelshGuitarDude "The people are not paying less in their bills" Well I live in the UK and I can confirm that I am paying less for my electricity. And the Dogger Bank installation featured here is going to add to lower prices. The high prices for energy in the UK were caused by high gas prices not wind energy prices.
Rubbish! You are talking out of your backside. Higher prices of electricity were caused by high gas prices. Try doing some homework before you start typing. It's not that difficult!
I'm surprised you didn't mention how many millions of birds are killed with these installations.
That's because there arn't millions of birds killed by Wind Turbines. Its a silly meme for silly people to believe. If you are worried about birds campaign against cats. They are the biggest killers of birds by far but forget Wind Farms as they kill so few its not worth mentioning.
Not nearly that many. This is a fossil fuel narrative you are pushing.
Here are stats from the US on unnatural causes of bird deaths overall: 2.4-billion birds killed by domestic cats alone per year. Or 599-million bird deaths from building glass collision, Or 214.5-million by collisions with vehicles.
Or the billions more birds (worldwide) that will be killed when their habitats are destroyed by climate change. Get the picture?
Turbines do not kill significant numbers of birds. Domestic cats do kill huge amounts of birds.
>26 million birds a year are killed by domestic cats in the U.K. …
I was part of the initial geophysical and environmental survey in 2010-2012 across the whole Dogger Bank area. A thorough multi-year bird survey was conducted, analysing and recording migratory paths, bird species, numbers, and - crucially - flying height. I don't know the results of the survey, but suffice to say the work was done and there is data out there that has been taken into account when placing these turbines.
6 million homes is less than one tenth of all UK homes. We're never going to be able to go fully renewable.
We’ll see about that. This is just the start. But you make it sound like it is not even worth trying. In any case, even if the UK doesn’t get to 100% renewable energy share, what about if it gets close? That is still a big deal.
@@ewadge its literally impossible unless we have serious battery storage technology. Renewables are an addition, if we want to reduce CO2 we will have to have nuclear as the backbone of power with renewables sprinkled on top which is what the UK is aiming to do.
@@WelshGuitarDude I disagree and after the financial disaster which is Hinkley Point C I doubt that a single new Nuclear Power station will ever be built in the UK.
@@ewadge If thats the case then we will be using natural gas for another half century for our power needs at the very least. Unless we import our power needs from far away but that will make us susceptible for inflation again.
There's only 30 million homes in the uk
Total waste of vast amounts of tax payers money!
There are no taxes involved. But it will bring much taxes for the UK
The real waste is the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant. Start in 2017 and is estimated to be completed in 2031…maybe. 8bn pounds over budget. 32.7bn pounds in total, maybe more.
Why post lies, these wind farms are privately funded.
It's private sector money at a guaranteed strike price less than any other generation. This project will generate significant tax revenue for the government and save taxpayers money, and spare us importing costly foreign energy. Go back to sleep boomer. Let the adults work.
Disgusting environmental vandalism.
Wind power has it's downsides... but it is far better than continuing to burn fossil fuels. The environmental vandalism from fossil fuels is tougher to see due to it's slow effect over time.
Disgusting ill informed comment.
You should see the trawl scars on the Dogger Bank... it's been scraped clean. One extra bonus these turbines will have is that they will stop trawlers hoovering up anything they can find, and allow a safe haven for fish, hopefully allowing our vastly depleted fish stocks in the North Sea to recover.
Also, if you're against offshore wind, what's your stance on offshore oil? At least if a wind turbine catches fire it doesn't cause catastrophic environmental damage and potential loss of life, unlike an oil rig
oh I know, lets build coal plants, brilliant.. Perhaps near your home?
What a waste of time, space and taxpayers money. Electricity is a commodity that is produced at the same moment it is created. That is not possible with wind energy since it is always dependent of the weather. If there is too much wind there is overproduction and if there is little or no wind the energy has to be brought from an other source. The industry needs stable and predictable energy and that can only be achieved with large generators. Then you are left with hydropower, fossil fuel or nuclear power. If you don’t have one of these you will have extreme price variations, unstable power supply and in general extreme prices of electricity. Your industry will move to countries where they get cheap and reliable energy and all UK is left with is the enormous expenses the taxpayers have to cover for. Good luck with that.
What is your suggested alternatives to Wind and Solar ?
@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd The answer to that is very simple. It is nuclear power. Contrary to what a lot of people think, nuclear is very safe. In fact it has together with solar power the lowest mortality rate of any energy production. The three most known nuclear accidents Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island was in reality hydrogen explosions because they lost cooling of the reactor. When water hits temperatures above 700 degrees centigrade the water molecules split and large amounts of hydrogen is generated. With them forth generation of reactors this is not longer an issue. Specially the molten salt reactors are extremely safe. First of all there is no water present in the reactor but instead molten salt at a temperature up to 700 degrees. There is hardly any pressure in the system unlike water where you will have a pressure from 75 to 150 bar in the superheated steam. Should there be a leak in the system the salt will solidify when the temperature gets below 500 degrees and the radioactive material will remain in the plant. It will not take up much space and can be scaled to needs. Copenhagen Atomics are developing reactors that are placed in units similar to 40 feet containers. Unlike traditional reactors these are not dependent of large amounts of cooling water and can be set up anywhere. Should things go wrong and they loose control of the process a melting plug will melt and the radioactive material will be drained into a drain tank by gravity at around 800 degrees and will be cooled there. If the melting plug fails for some reason the process will stop by itself at around 1100 degrees because the distance between the molecules will be too far. The control rods are held up electro magnetic and if there is a power failure they will fall down by gravity and stop the process completely. Since it uses molten salt to circulate the radioactive material and not rods it does not have to be shut down to replace used fuel. These reactors can run on both thorium and uranium and can be used to burn down nuclear waste and plutonium.
In fact it can get 10 times more energy out of waste from existing nuclear plants. The waste from these reactors only needs to be stored for 300 years before they are completely safe to be around. They produce heat and this heat can be used for a number other purposes other than electricity production. Desalinization plants and various refining processes are just a few. While the salt is circulating you can extract useful isotopes from that can be used in cancer treatments and similar. What about the price for plants and the electricity they produce? That can be very small since they can be series produced on an assembly line. One lump of thorium the size of a tennis ball contains enough energy to the needs of a human from new born to 100 years old. With the production of electricity near to where it is consumed you will also need a lesser electrical grid. Wind and solar energy is a hype. In Sweden they have calculated they have had an annual loss of 37% since 2017. I don’t know any other business that could exist with such losses but then again there are none other business with similar guarantees from governments and EU. Due to that they get loans at extremely low interest rates because it is no risks to the bank and the money they get they can lend out to daughter companies in other countries and skim out the difference in interest rates. It is easy to gamble with money when others have to pay for losses. People are easily fooled, specially if you label something as green and claim that it will save the climate.
A fool and his or hers money often goes different ways.
@@runedahl1477 Nuclear power failed the world and did not even come close to its 1950s promise of "energy too cheap to meter". If nuclear had come close, we wouldn't be so deep down the climate change hole we are in now.
The next 10- to 20-years will be critical to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. Yet it takes 10- to 20-years to build a *single* large nuclear power plant. Constructing new nuclear power plants will have essentially zero impact on the amounts of energy needed to displace enough fossil fuels during this critical period.
Look at the tremendous cost and overruns of the latest nuclear power plants like Alabama Vogtle and UK Hinkley C. With those *billions* over-budget and *years* over-schedule, these are likely to be the last nuclear power plants built in these countries. These cost and schedule overruns are actually par for the course with commercial nuclear power.
Every dollar spent on nuclear during this time actually delays the worldwide energy transition. The simplest answer is sun & wind from the cosmically large fusion power plant we have in the sky. All the combined fissile and fossil energy that ever existed on Earth would amount to only a bucket in an ocean compared to amounts of energy we get from our host star.
Commercial nuclear power will be gone from the terrestrial grid in about 50-years' time. It's simply the wrong tool for the job: too small in scale, too slow in construction, and too costly. But nuclear will remain in small-scale forms where it excels in like: military, scientific, nuclear medicine, and deep-space exploration.
@@beyondfossil Nuclear energy is coming whether you like it or not.Already in the fifties did they start with molten salt reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They solved most of the technical issues and did all the scientific work on this type of reactor.
In September 2021 the Chinese started a test project in the Gobi desert based on the knowledge from Oak Ridge. Their plan is to start mass production of reactors from 2030. When they started with nuclear power production one of the things they were looking for was an efficient way to produce plutonium for bombs and molten salt reactors are not very suitable for that. However they are very suitable for burning nuclear waste. A nuclear plant is expensive to build but with a lifetime expectancy of 60 to 80 years they will pay off in the long run. Nobody knows how long a wind farm will last. I saw a movie from Sweden regarding major failures on wind turbines and they basically had one every month the last years. This was major things such as blades falling off and fires. The situation is so bad that the German and the Spanish government had to bail out Siemens Gamesa with a whopping sum of 88 billion euros. It addition they guaranteed 165 billion euros in state guarantee. The stock price of SG stocks fell with 90%. SG is one of the largest producers of wind turbines in the world and the reason for the big loss was that the quality of the turbines. The simply failed long before the expected lifespan. When calculating the costs of putting up wind turbines they never included the costs of putting up the grid . This cost a lot more than building and putting up the turbines. Offshore you can multiply the cost by five compared to that of a land based wind farm. There are plenty of uranium in the world and even more thorium. It will last ten thousands of years. This gives the generations that comes after us plenty of time to figure out nuclear fusion.
One ball of thorium the size of a tennis ball contains enough energy to cover all the needs of a human from birth to the age of 100 years.
A ball like this doesn’t cost much.
The problem with wind and solar energy is that they only produce electricity when the weather allows and the electricity they produce is of low quality because the sinus curve fluctuates too much. When the weather allows they produce too much and when there is no wind or sun they have to get energy from other sources. This means hydroelectric, nuclear or fossil fuel. You don’t want to emit carbon dioxide so fossil fuel is out of the question. You can’t build a hydroelectric power everywhere. The topography of the landscape and available amount of water limits that. Forget about batteries,hydrogen production, flywheels, gravity storage or heat silos. They are expensive and very unpractical. Besides they will only last a short time. What you are left with is nuclear power. Most of the energy in a grid have to come from a stable and plan able source. That means big generators that can provide a stable sinus curve that is in sync with the consumption. Electricity has to be consumed the same moment it is created. Electricity should be considered as one big machine. Right now too many of the countries with a lot of wind power have fossil fuel plants standing by for those days when the wind is not blowing, often coal fired plants. How good is that for the climate? An other thing those that advocates for wind power never talks about is the third world. It will not help the climate if we destroy our nature and bankrupt all our power hungry industries. People in the third world wants the same standard of living as we have. A key contribution to this is plenty of cheap electricity. To get there they built the cheapest form of electricity production they can and that is coal fired power plants. Right now there are about 2000 such plants under construction in third world countries with a large population. About one third of the world’s population falls into this category. Would it not be nice if we can provide them with cheap and reliable emissions free energy. Right now there are about 80 different companies and countries that are working on various nuclear projects.
I am quite convinced that some of them will make it. If there is a will things can be achieved. As an example I could mention the ozone layer.
When was the last time you heard something in the news regarding the ozone layer?
@@runedahl1477 SMR will not save dying commercial utility-scale nuclear. SMR comes with its own long list of problems and molten salts introduces other complications. More importantly, to get the advertised low cost per MWh would actually require building SMR units in volumes of 10,000+ units. The factories for building at this scale don't exist and building such a mega-factory would be a challenge in itself. Unit volumes below this would actually mean SMR costs more per MWh than standard nuclear. There's overlapping fixed overhead in operations and manufacturing for each SMR unit that don't exist for large-scale nuclear.
In its long 70-years of operation, commercial nuclear only powers 10% of the world's grids and that number is falling. Almost every nuclear power plant construction has been marred with being *billions* over-budget and *years* over-schedule. Nuclear power the longest running joke in the energy industry.