9 ms·
Scotland’s floating wind farm is showing how powerful offshore wind can be
- anovikov 9y agoSolar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. Theoretical maximum for 100% perfect weather on equator is 29%. I doubt it crosses 22-23% anywhere in the world and definitely no more than 15-16% U.S. average.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lucideer 9y agoAre you talking about capacity or capacity factor? From the article: > Capacity factor measures a generation unit's actual output against its theoretical maximum output. So this would be a percentage of your theoretical maximum, never exceeding it, by definition.
- anovikov 9y agoI mean that, a solar panel can't produce 27 watts on average having a 100 watts peak power. In any practical location on Earth - while somewhere in the middle of Sahara desert, it will be close to that (unless you take in account solar panel's reduced power in higher temperatures).
- lucideer 9y agoHow is the 100 watts calculated in your example? I would've presumed the theoretical maximum for a producing unit would be what it could theoretically actually produce in the location its placed. If it's the theoretical maximum output of a cell, then calling BS seems warranted, but it doesn't seem like that would be a useful comparator in this context.
- scythe 9y agoTemperature doesn't affect capacity factor by this definition, because it reduces the numerator and the denominator by the same proportion.
- cjalmeida 9y agoThe denominator is based on standard test conditions. Check the link for details. http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/ http://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-tes... Those conditions reflect not the theoretical maximum but an expected output in very good actual conditions. This is relevant because it relates to the needed transmission capacity one need installed. For instance, at 30% capacity factor, you're "wasting 70%" of transmission on average. It's a good metric to compare between sites of a same energy source but it's not very useful between sources. For that, the better metric is Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) in $/MWh. Usually present with or without subsidies.
- maxerickson 9y agohttps://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf discusses their methodology some. They aren't simply using nameplate capacity as the denominator.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- danmaz74 9y agoA couple of actual numbers: * For example, Agua Caliente Solar Project, located in Arizona near the 33rd parallel and awarded for its excellence in renewable energy has a nameplate capacity of 290 MW and an actual average annual production of 740 GWh/year. Its capacity factor is thus: 29% * A significantly lower capacity factor is achieved by Lauingen Energy Park located in Bavaria, near the 49th parallel. With a nameplate capacity of 25.7 MW and an actual average annual production of 26.98 GWh/year it has a capacity factor of 12.0%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Photovoltaic_p...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Jedd 9y ago> Solar 27% capacity factor is BS, that isn't possible. I often gripe about people using the word nuclear to describe exclusively fission, which is regrettable for those of us keen on encouraging research in fusion. The use of the word 'solar' to describe exclusively PVCs is comparably regrettable. Solar thermal is pretty much guaranteed to trump PVCs at the moment, albeit at a higher capex.
- anovikov 9y agoTrue, solar thermal using steerable mirrors, can do it.
- eisa01 9y agoYou can oversize the system by installing more modules behind the inverter. Hence when you calculate the capacity factor in AC terms it is higher than in the nameplate DC terms
- hliyan 9y agoA different article puts the energy costs at: "140 pounds ($185) per megawatt-hour on top of the current wholesale power price in the UK, which is about 49 pounds ($65) per megawatt-hour" Some way to go before it becomes competitive...
- Gys 9y ago12 more years ;-) > By 2030, Statoil says, it hopes to bring the cost of floating offshore wind down to €40-60 per MWh ($50-74 per MWh).
- toomuchtodo 9y agoYou should look at how inaccurate the EIA predicted renewable generation costs would decline (they predicted decades longer). Solar and battery manufacturing costs have been dropping ~80% every decade. Even if the cost decline curve starts to flatten, the fate of fossil and nuclear generators is sealed.
- CydeWeys 9y agoWind power is big on-site construction though, which doesn't decrease much in cost over time (if at all). Yes, there'll be some economies in scale if we're making ten times as many turbine blades in the future versus now, but that won't come close to the orders of magnitude improvements we've seen in cost efficiency in photovoltaic cells over the past decades. To use a simple example outside of renewables, it's now more expensive than ever before in US history to complete a large infrastructure project (say, a new bridge across the Hudson River), but you can buy a $40 Raspberry Pi that has more processing capacity than all the billions of dollars worth of computers that existed in the 60s.
- nicoburns 9y agoI think cost per mwh has been improving for wind not by reducing infrustructure construction costs, but by increasing the amount of power a given installation generates. If the generator/turbine is twice as efficient then the cost is halved...
- gaius 9y agoNorway’s, no? It just happens to be located near Scotland. The SNP’s plans for tidal barriers came to naught (as did their dreams of oil at $100/barrel)
- lumisota 9y agoWhile it is owned by Norway's state oil company, it supplies the UK National Grid and receives UK government subsidies.
- gaius 9y agoSo England pays, Norway gets the profit and Scotland gets the credit. Hmmm.
- pjc50 9y agoThis is like all other power stations in a privatised economy. For example the Hinkley Point C power station is subsidised by the UK but constructed, operated and will send profit (if any) to the French state-owned EDF. Energy is a reserved area and not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
- gaius 9y agoYes it's ironic that all our utilities ended up as state owned after all!
- jamiegreen 9y agoEngland ≠ UK
- Wildgoose 9y agoI think he knows that - hence making the distinction between England (footing most of the cost) and Scotland (getting the credit).
- icebraining 9y ago
- truculation 9y agoThe EarthWindMap gives one a sense of how much stronger (in general) the wind is over the sea than it is over the land: https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-13.97,33.58,606 https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
- andrewem 9y agoVery cool site, and it makes your point quite well. I panned over to the east coast of North America, and what's that? Oh yes, it's the Nor'easter that just hit that area, a big rotating storm with a very clear center. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-65.16,30.81,606 https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...
- JBlue42 9y agoYou might list windy as well: https://www.windy.com/ https://www.windy.com/
- swsieber 9y agoI find windy cool. However, it's not useful when looking at things like hurricanes or other things with large wind differences because the color scale warps around every 70mph or so.
- JBlue42 9y agoTrue. Just offering something else similar and cool for the person in the previous comment to check out.
- dillondoyle 9y agoI wonder how much energy collection it would take to significantly interrupt the polar airstream (IDK the name I'm sure there is one) - a la Day After Tomorrow but on a much slower time scale as wind comes on and alters energy.
- beefman 9y agoThe material inputs for the lifetime of the project are roughly 27 t/GWh, 1/3 of which is metal. It shows how terribly poor wind energy systems are.
- trhway 9y agowhat happens to that metal afterwards? wouldn't it continue to be metal which can scrapped and reused? the reuse/remelt is much more energy efficient then original production you seem to allude to.
- Flavius 9y agoI guess he's talking about the initial investment. Not sure how this compares to solar. I know that solar would be much better, but in some places it's not an option.
- beefman 9y agoSolar can get to ~ 3 t/GWh under ideal circumstances (panels only). With balance of plant (mounting hardware, transmission infrastructure etc) it's at least twice that (and about the same as onshore wind).
- beefman 9y agoYes, metal can be recycled. It's still more energy-intensive than concrete. Materials intensity is a pretty good figure of merit for energy systems, and energy intensity is an ideal one.
- azernik 9y agoConcrete's CO2 emissions are, however, doubled by the chemical processes used to make cement.
- oldandtired 9y agoWhich is relevant in what way? The amount of concrete is small in relative terms, so doubling a small quantity is still a small quantity. A forest fire will put out significantly more CO2 and they occur quite frequently around the globe. If you want us to take your comment seriously, you will need to show that the CO2 emissions would be on some significant level.
- bthornbury 9y ago> sending 30MW of power to the grid every minute of every day One of those little inconsistencies that stood out to me... Scratches head MW = 1000J / s What happens when you send 30MW per minute.. 30MW per minute = 1000J / s / m Hmmm
- cshenton 9y agoProbably they mean megawatt hours. Which is a common unit of energy in the industry. Then adding per minute makes sense.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- epistasis 9y agoNo head scratcher there. They didn't write it in the sense of "30MW per minute", it was "30MW every minute" meaning a constant power rating of 30MW, instead of a variable rating where one minute it's 30MW and the next minute it's at 20MW, or whatever.
- bthornbury 9y agoFrom the language of the article it's somewhat ambiguous. "A capacity factor of 100 percent means the wind farm would be sending 30MW of power to the grid every minute of every day since it's been in operation." The "sending" portion makes me interpret this in the sense of 30MW per minute.
- cbcoutinho 9y agoMost renewable energy sources are variable, meaning they have a capacity/load factor that is less than 100% - you would never mention the load factor of a natural gas power plant because it's essentially a turnkey solution that doesn't fluctuate. Renewable energy is different, and it's good that this issue is mentioned in articles so that it's acknowledged as being a challenge. I don't think it's ambiguous in any way
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- alva 9y agoIf Elon Musk (or any suitable ambitious and rich person) fancies an exciting challenge, there is a very large and ancient body of land in relatively shallow waters (15m) between the UK and the Continent called Doggerland [0]. Many years ago some people were looking into reclaiming the island and making it the worlds biggest wind farm. It is in a perfect location. Plus you never know, might be able to make it an independent nation ;). Possibly a good launch site? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
- sharpercoder 9y agohttps://www.tennet.eu/nl/onze-kerntaken/innovaties/north-sea-infrastructure/ https://www.tennet.eu/nl/onze-kerntaken/innovaties/north-sea...
- jimrandomh 9y agoNot a usable launch site; it's too far from the equator to reach the most common orbits, and for polar orbits, it'd be dropping boosters either in Europe (unsafe) or the arctic (hard to recover).
- admiun 9y agoI think it's already part of proposal [1] to generate a healthy chunk of the power required for the six North Sea countries. The video [2] is pretty interesting. [1] https://iabr.nl/en/projectatelier/Atelier2050 https://iabr.nl/en/projectatelier/Atelier2050 [2] https://vimeo.com/199825983 https://vimeo.com/199825983
- cm2187 9y agoHow steady is the electricity production of a windfarm? I would assume that it would be subject to bursts, with the production being quite volatile over an hour. If that's the case isn't it a problem for the grid given that the demand isn't bursty?
- shaki-dora 9y agoYes and no... Having many producers, connected by the grid, smooths out any fluctuations on the “minute” timescale. There’s also some smoothing because solar and wind tend to peak at different times of the day. Batteries have also improved dramatically, and there are “smart grid” efforts that could help, such as running some consumers during times of peak production (refrigerator compressors, aluminum smelters), or using grid-connected batteries, such as charging cars. The storage problem is imminently solvable and, with the improvements in solar efficiency, renewables are certain to become cost leaders rather soon. In fact they may already have.
- sohkamyung 9y agoJust a note that research into the effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds is still needed to minimise their environmental impact. Here's an article that looks at it[1]. [1] "As Offshore Wind Power Picks Up, Do Seabirds Need to Suffer?" https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/as-offshore-wind-power-picks-up-do-seabirds-have-to-suffer/ https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/as-offshore-wind-power-pi...
- touristtam 9y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=PUlfvXaISvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=PUlfvXaISvc