5 ms·

Isn't it a bad idea to build these in a corrosive environment like the ocean? Is there a reason, other than NIMBY to put them in the ocean?

by tsherr 6y ago

sefrost 6y ago
As I understand it this technology has developed because the government (David Cameron) essentially banned onshore wind by removing the subsidies for it. They changed the rules back again last year though [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/02/uk-government-lifts-block-on-new-onshore-windfarm-subsidies https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/02/uk-governme...
lizknope 6y ago
I've read that the wind is more consistent in the ocean.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Not just more consistent, but also usually stronger. Currently, for example, wind speeds over the North Sea and the Baltic are stronger than over the adjacent land, and the change at the coastline is quite striking (I'm assuming that the model behind this map is reasonably accurate in that regard.) https://www.windy.com/53.744/-0.339?53.372,-0.339,8 https://www.windy.com/53.744/-0.339?53.372,-0.339,8
weego 6y ago
Perhaps somewhere during the planning, design, development and testing phases they considered this issue and mitigated it?
- senorjazz 6y ago
  you'd think but...
nicoburns 6y ago
It's possible to build bigger turbines at sea, which are more efficient. The limitation on land is transporting the blades which often requires roads to be modified.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  And wind is steadier out a sea plus there is a Nimby aspect in the UK.
  - diroussel 6y ago
    It’s not so much “not in my back yard” as there is no back yard big enough. The article says the new digger bank wind farm will be as big as Yorkshire, which is really very big (in UK terms)
japanuspus 6y ago
Corrosion on the submerged parts is quite simple to mitigate with sacrificial as also used on ships. The hard part is the splash zone which is only intermittently submerged.
PLenz 6y ago
More consistent wind due to a lack of elevated land to slow it down via friction.
gmac 6y ago
Especially in a geographically pretty small country like the UK, NIMBY (or indeed anyone else's back yard) may be a perfectly valid argument. These things are big and somewhat noisy.
- zaroth 6y ago
  You also can’t live or work anywhere that would be hit by the strobing shadow cast by the blades.
  - jdeibele 6y ago
    Somebody posted a link to the YouTube video that showed a Dutch turbine exploding. In the description it said pieces went 500 meters. So there probably needs to be a physical safety zone of 1km or more, not that turbines seem to explode very often. Also noise has been mentioned by some people as a consideration. https://www.ramblingsdc.net/wtnoise.html https://www.ramblingsdc.net/wtnoise.html has an interesting page on it (and a 2012 vibe).
GordonS 6y ago
Some oil and gas related gear stays subsea for 20 years before it's pulled up, so presumably similar alloys/paints/techniques are being used. Source: I've worked, within IT, in the oil and gas sector for many years.
rsynnott 6y ago
There's a huge amount of experience in this area from oil and gas infrastructure; there've been large-scale offshore rigs in the North Sea since the 60s.
nicktelford 6y ago
As other posters have mentioned, offshore is significantly more economical for a number of reasons (stronger, more consistent wind; large tracts of available area for large-scale farms; the capability to build turbines much taller where they can access stronger winds) - so instead I'll mention another problem facing offshore turbines other than corrosion: the air. It turns out that offshore, the air contains a lot of minerals and water droplets that make it much more abrasive than the air over land. This is a particular problem for turbine blades, as their leading edge is moving through the air at a significant speed: enough to gradually ablate away the leading edge material! Consequently, offshore turbine blades need to be replaced more often than onshore turbine blades. This is one of the reasons that larger turbines are more economical: fewer larger turbines mean fewer, larger blades that need to be periodically replaced.

Isn't it a bad idea to build these in a corrosive environment like the ocean? Is there a reason, other than NIMBY to put them in the ocean?

by tsherr 6y ago

Isn't it a bad idea to build these in a corrosive environment like the ocean? Is there a reason, other than NIMBY to put them in the ocean?

sefrost 6y ago

As I understand it this technology has developed because the government (David Cameron) essentially banned onshore wind by removing the subsidies for it. They changed the rules back again last year though [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/02/uk-government-lifts-block-on-new-onshore-windfarm-subsidies https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/02/uk-governme...

lizknope 6y ago

I've read that the wind is more consistent in the ocean.

mannykannot 6y ago
Not just more consistent, but also usually stronger. Currently, for example, wind speeds over the North Sea and the Baltic are stronger than over the adjacent land, and the change at the coastline is quite striking (I'm assuming that the model behind this map is reasonably accurate in that regard.) https://www.windy.com/53.744/-0.339?53.372,-0.339,8 https://www.windy.com/53.744/-0.339?53.372,-0.339,8

weego 6y ago

Perhaps somewhere during the planning, design, development and testing phases they considered this issue and mitigated it?

senorjazz 6y ago
you'd think but...

nicoburns 6y ago

It's possible to build bigger turbines at sea, which are more efficient. The limitation on land is transporting the blades which often requires roads to be modified.

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
And wind is steadier out a sea plus there is a Nimby aspect in the UK.
- diroussel 6y ago
  It’s not so much “not in my back yard” as there is no back yard big enough. The article says the new digger bank wind farm will be as big as Yorkshire, which is really very big (in UK terms)

japanuspus 6y ago

Corrosion on the submerged parts is quite simple to mitigate with sacrificial as also used on ships. The hard part is the splash zone which is only intermittently submerged.

PLenz 6y ago

More consistent wind due to a lack of elevated land to slow it down via friction.

gmac 6y ago

Especially in a geographically pretty small country like the UK, NIMBY (or indeed anyone else's back yard) may be a perfectly valid argument. These things are big and somewhat noisy.

zaroth 6y ago
You also can’t live or work anywhere that would be hit by the strobing shadow cast by the blades.
- jdeibele 6y ago
  Somebody posted a link to the YouTube video that showed a Dutch turbine exploding. In the description it said pieces went 500 meters. So there probably needs to be a physical safety zone of 1km or more, not that turbines seem to explode very often. Also noise has been mentioned by some people as a consideration. https://www.ramblingsdc.net/wtnoise.html https://www.ramblingsdc.net/wtnoise.html has an interesting page on it (and a 2012 vibe).

GordonS 6y ago

Some oil and gas related gear stays subsea for 20 years before it's pulled up, so presumably similar alloys/paints/techniques are being used. Source: I've worked, within IT, in the oil and gas sector for many years.

rsynnott 6y ago

There's a huge amount of experience in this area from oil and gas infrastructure; there've been large-scale offshore rigs in the North Sea since the 60s.

nicktelford 6y ago

As other posters have mentioned, offshore is significantly more economical for a number of reasons (stronger, more consistent wind; large tracts of available area for large-scale farms; the capability to build turbines much taller where they can access stronger winds) - so instead I'll mention another problem facing offshore turbines other than corrosion: the air. It turns out that offshore, the air contains a lot of minerals and water droplets that make it much more abrasive than the air over land. This is a particular problem for turbine blades, as their leading edge is moving through the air at a significant speed: enough to gradually ablate away the leading edge material! Consequently, offshore turbine blades need to be replaced more often than onshore turbine blades. This is one of the reasons that larger turbines are more economical: fewer larger turbines mean fewer, larger blades that need to be periodically replaced.