5 ms·

Presumably these would be on-shore only? Or could you have e.g. a steel base and then a wooden tower for an off-white turbine? At least in the UK, off-shore w

Presumably these would be on-shore only? Or could you have e.g. a steel base and then a wooden tower for an off-white turbine? At least in the UK, off-shore wind is utterly dominant.

mkl 4y ago
"Off-white"? Did you mean "off-shore", or is this something else that search engines are failing me on?
- mattlondon 4y ago
  Auto-correct gone wrong - off-shore was correct.
coryrc 4y ago
UK has about 35% more onshore capacity than offshore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...
- mattlondon 4y ago
  AIUI there are essentially no new on-shore wind farms being built. So while there is existing capacity, the focus is now on deploying new farms off-shore. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johnson-to-unveil-plan-to-power-all-uk-homes-with-wind-by-2030 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johns... and https://www.ukri.org/news-and-events/responding-to-climate-change/topical-stories/harnessing-offshore-wind/ https://www.ukri.org/news-and-events/responding-to-climate-c... have some more context.
  - jl6 4y ago
    Yes, onshore wind in the UK is big, but offshore has the potential to be very, very big.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    The towers have gotten so high that inland wind has gotten a lot more profitable. Over here it started onshore but is now happening inland. Offshore is very expensive because of moving ice.
    - cr1895 4y ago
      > Offshore is very expensive because of moving ice. Huh? Ice? There isn’t any sea ice to contend with in the UK.
      - Gravityloss 4y ago
        Of course there isn't, and I didn't say so.
        cr1895 4y ago
        Can you clarify then what you mean by “because of moving ice?”
        Gravityloss 4y ago
        Where the climate is cold, like "over here", and many other places, building in the sea is expensive, because of the moving ice. Hence offshore wind is not really even a thing here - but wind is still being massively built - inland - because of new technology like higher towers and larger unit sizes make it profitable. Land locked countries or countries with not a lot of sea also can benefit from this newer wind technology that can be built inland profitably. They then don't need to build onshore but can build inland. Some US states for example have great inland wind resources. And there timber towers could be very relevant - it doesn't need to be saltwater proof.
        cr1895 4y ago
        The context of this subthread was wind power in the UK…it was super confusing to me that you apparently are referring to some mysterious other place with ice.
cyberpunk 4y ago
Wood lasts longer in saltwater than on land. This is why all those old stories about wooden ships have them “swabbing the decks” with seawater; when it rains the freshwater can cause the boat to rot so they wash it again with salt.
shaoonb 4y ago
> in the UK, off-shore wind is utterly dominant. This is for political reasons rather than economic or technical ones. Further reducing the cost of on-shore wind relative to off-shore could swing the political argument in favour of on-shore wind.
- cr1895 4y ago
  I strongly doubt that, due to the utterly immense scale of offshore turbines and better wind resource.
  - matthiasl 4y ago
    Do you have some numbers to back your "strong" doubts? One widely cited source is the 'Lazard' report: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... it puts onshore wind at between $26 and $50 per MW and the cost of offshore wind at an average of $83 per MW. I.e. the opposite of what you think. Lazard could be wrong, and it would be interesting to hear why, backed by some numbers.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Offshore is a lot more consistent.
    - cr1895 4y ago
      > the opposite of what you think. Well, no, I didn’t make the claim that it was the cheapest. It is competitively priced, however, which is important, and both technically and politically achievable. Anyway the other person claimed that if onshore became even cheaper that onshore would gain favor over offshore. Yet, it’s already apparently significantly cheaper. So why isn’t it more favorable already? There are motivations beyond purely cost…it’s a lot easier to have larger-scale offshore wind than onshore (are there 15MW+ turbines in the onshore pipeline?) with less nuisance and better wind resource. It’s not really feasible to transport the components for such massive wind turbines onshore. Multi-gigawatt scale onshore wind farms don’t exist (the largest I noticed after a quick search is only 350MW). Offshore can be so much bigger…Dogger Bank, when it’s fully realized, will be almost 14 times larger than the current largest onshore wind farm in the UK.

Presumably these would be on-shore only? Or could you have e.g. a steel base and then a wooden tower for an off-white turbine? At least in the UK, off-shore wind is utterly dominant.

mkl 4y ago

"Off-white"? Did you mean "off-shore", or is this something else that search engines are failing me on?

mattlondon 4y ago
Auto-correct gone wrong - off-shore was correct.

coryrc 4y ago

UK has about 35% more onshore capacity than offshore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...

mattlondon 4y ago
AIUI there are essentially no new on-shore wind farms being built. So while there is existing capacity, the focus is now on deploying new farms off-shore. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johnson-to-unveil-plan-to-power-all-uk-homes-with-wind-by-2030 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johns... and https://www.ukri.org/news-and-events/responding-to-climate-change/topical-stories/harnessing-offshore-wind/ https://www.ukri.org/news-and-events/responding-to-climate-c... have some more context.
- jl6 4y ago
  Yes, onshore wind in the UK is big, but offshore has the potential to be very, very big.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  The towers have gotten so high that inland wind has gotten a lot more profitable. Over here it started onshore but is now happening inland. Offshore is very expensive because of moving ice.
  - cr1895 4y ago
    > Offshore is very expensive because of moving ice. Huh? Ice? There isn’t any sea ice to contend with in the UK.
    - Gravityloss 4y ago
      Of course there isn't, and I didn't say so.
      - cr1895 4y ago
        Can you clarify then what you mean by “because of moving ice?”
        Gravityloss 4y ago
        Where the climate is cold, like "over here", and many other places, building in the sea is expensive, because of the moving ice. Hence offshore wind is not really even a thing here - but wind is still being massively built - inland - because of new technology like higher towers and larger unit sizes make it profitable. Land locked countries or countries with not a lot of sea also can benefit from this newer wind technology that can be built inland profitably. They then don't need to build onshore but can build inland. Some US states for example have great inland wind resources. And there timber towers could be very relevant - it doesn't need to be saltwater proof.
        cr1895 4y ago
        The context of this subthread was wind power in the UK…it was super confusing to me that you apparently are referring to some mysterious other place with ice.

cyberpunk 4y ago

Wood lasts longer in saltwater than on land. This is why all those old stories about wooden ships have them “swabbing the decks” with seawater; when it rains the freshwater can cause the boat to rot so they wash it again with salt.

shaoonb 4y ago

> in the UK, off-shore wind is utterly dominant. This is for political reasons rather than economic or technical ones. Further reducing the cost of on-shore wind relative to off-shore could swing the political argument in favour of on-shore wind.

cr1895 4y ago
I strongly doubt that, due to the utterly immense scale of offshore turbines and better wind resource.
- matthiasl 4y ago
  Do you have some numbers to back your "strong" doubts? One widely cited source is the 'Lazard' report: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... it puts onshore wind at between $26 and $50 per MW and the cost of offshore wind at an average of $83 per MW. I.e. the opposite of what you think. Lazard could be wrong, and it would be interesting to hear why, backed by some numbers.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Offshore is a lot more consistent.
  - cr1895 4y ago
    > the opposite of what you think. Well, no, I didn’t make the claim that it was the cheapest. It is competitively priced, however, which is important, and both technically and politically achievable. Anyway the other person claimed that if onshore became even cheaper that onshore would gain favor over offshore. Yet, it’s already apparently significantly cheaper. So why isn’t it more favorable already? There are motivations beyond purely cost…it’s a lot easier to have larger-scale offshore wind than onshore (are there 15MW+ turbines in the onshore pipeline?) with less nuisance and better wind resource. It’s not really feasible to transport the components for such massive wind turbines onshore. Multi-gigawatt scale onshore wind farms don’t exist (the largest I noticed after a quick search is only 350MW). Offshore can be so much bigger…Dogger Bank, when it’s fully realized, will be almost 14 times larger than the current largest onshore wind farm in the UK.