4 ms·

Floating offshore wind has it's own manufacturing dynamics. For instance, you can build the whole structure in a shipyard and toll it, unlike onshore. Floating

Floating offshore wind has it's own manufacturing dynamics. For instance, you can build the whole structure in a shipyard and toll it, unlike onshore. Floating towers are definitely a revolution in wind farm building.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Also very importantly, this can keep shipyards busy building continuously, which is superior to the usual shipbuilding boom/bust cycles. (I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)
- jopsen 9y ago
  Any reason to believe wind farminh won't follow the same economic mood swings?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Wind generators would be very price elastic: if an idle shipyard makes a desperate offer, the whole profitability threshold shifts and the energy market is impossible to completely saturate (worst case you'd have so much energy that it would be economical to synthesize hydrocarbons from thin air, to pump them into the ground for CO2 credits). Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.
CydeWeys 9y ago
What's the cost reduction of doing this? Wind blades, turbines, and towers are already built in factories; the only difference here appears to be that you don't need to do as much site prep or assembly on site? I'm sure it saves some money but I'd be surprised if it saves even half.
- alphydan 9y ago
  That's not the critical factor. The critical factor is sea depth and wind speed. 1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s! 2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive). So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important). [1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-structures-aid4.html http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    How much more is it possible to get in the way of gains by moving even further offshore? Or does it top out at 8 m/s average speed?
    - alphydan 9y ago
      I gave 6m/s and 8m/s as realistic numbers to show the dramatic increase with a little bit more speed. Further offshore you can have average annual speeds over 10m/s (This time, a roughly x4.5 increase in revenue compared to 6m/s) [0]. The large turbines typically operate up to 25m/s and then shut down for safety. Really large offshore turbines operate ideally at an average of 11m/s [1]. You can also see some real data here [2]. However, what investors (or farm operators) really care about it LCOE. Levelized cost of Energy over the lifetime of the machine. It's that $50/MWh and considers the revenue (roughly proportional to v^3) and all the costs. After that it's an optimization game: - Too far = costly maintenance, costly installation, longer cables, rougher seas - Too close = not enough wind (but "cheap" installation) (Plus many other important factors: risk, incentives, NIMBY, access to capital, wind turbulence, etc, etc) [0] https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a [1] http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbines/Turbines/V164-8MW.pdf http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbine... [2] http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Also very importantly, this can keep shipyards busy building continuously, which is superior to the usual shipbuilding boom/bust cycles. (I found several citations around boom/bust cycles, but mostly paywalled [WSJ, Economist]; Google if you're interested)

jopsen 9y ago
Any reason to believe wind farminh won't follow the same economic mood swings?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- usrusr 9y ago
  Wind generators would be very price elastic: if an idle shipyard makes a desperate offer, the whole profitability threshold shifts and the energy market is impossible to completely saturate (worst case you'd have so much energy that it would be economical to synthesize hydrocarbons from thin air, to pump them into the ground for CO2 credits). Also, look at it from the other side: the actors (states) who might be interested in propping up shipyards have very little direct use for generic shipping. Even less if there is a shipping glut (which would typically be just the time when the shipyard would need the propping-up). Conventionally, the only realistic thing a state could do to keep the shipyards in business would be to order some warships. With floating wind, this would change, instead of getting something destructive that will keep costing money once it's there you could get something productive.

CydeWeys 9y ago

What's the cost reduction of doing this? Wind blades, turbines, and towers are already built in factories; the only difference here appears to be that you don't need to do as much site prep or assembly on site? I'm sure it saves some money but I'd be surprised if it saves even half.

alphydan 9y ago
That's not the critical factor. The critical factor is sea depth and wind speed. 1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s! 2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive). So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important). [1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-structures-aid4.html http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  How much more is it possible to get in the way of gains by moving even further offshore? Or does it top out at 8 m/s average speed?
  - alphydan 9y ago
    I gave 6m/s and 8m/s as realistic numbers to show the dramatic increase with a little bit more speed. Further offshore you can have average annual speeds over 10m/s (This time, a roughly x4.5 increase in revenue compared to 6m/s) [0]. The large turbines typically operate up to 25m/s and then shut down for safety. Really large offshore turbines operate ideally at an average of 11m/s [1]. You can also see some real data here [2]. However, what investors (or farm operators) really care about it LCOE. Levelized cost of Energy over the lifetime of the machine. It's that $50/MWh and considers the revenue (roughly proportional to v^3) and all the costs. After that it's an optimization game: - Too far = costly maintenance, costly installation, longer cables, rougher seas - Too close = not enough wind (but "cheap" installation) (Plus many other important factors: risk, incentives, NIMBY, access to capital, wind turbulence, etc, etc) [0] https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a https://goo.gl/images/NFny2a [1] http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbines/Turbines/V164-8MW.pdf http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uceseug/Fluids2/Wind_Turbine... [2] http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm http://www.wind-power-program.com/large_turbines.htm