10 ms·

Since the number 1.2MW didn't mean much to me, modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW and offshore ones 8 - 12MW. But this seems a lot easier to tr

by tetha 3y ago

Since the number 1.2MW didn't mean much to me, modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW and offshore ones 8 - 12MW. But this seems a lot easier to transport and install compared to cranes and the nightmare of navigating turbine blades on trucks through places. And if these hold up to water and don't cause too many problems for wildlife, there would be a lot less discussions about these "messing up my skyline", while tapping a new source of energy. Quite interesting and cool.

out_of_protocol 3y ago
> too many problems for wildlife There were a meta-analysis regarding population of birds in areas with/without wind turbines, found no statistically significant difference (unlike coal, where difference was huge)
- tetha 3y ago
  Yep. I mostly meant for or rather caused by this kite. I wouldn't expect it intuitively, as it's just a big object in the water, not moving erratically or obstructing anything.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    I guess erratic is in the eye of the beholder, but it's certainly moving.
  - imzadi 3y ago
    It has a 39-foot wingspan and moves in a figure 8 pattern on a seabed tether. There's going to be at least some implication for local wildlife, but is it worse than the impacts of fossil fuels? I have no idea. It's definitely an interesting concept. I'm sure it will get more efficient and require a smaller footprint over time, assuming we invest in it.
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      > There's going to be at least some implication for local wildlife, but is it worse than the impacts of fossil fuels? For that matter, how does it compare to the local impact of other watercraft?
- m0llusk 3y ago
  Like much statistical analysis there are some details that might not be well captured. Much of the opposition to wind power based on bird deaths is caused by the Altamont Pass facility which is placed in a golden eagle breeding area and has significantly disrupted that species. There could be similar risks here if generating equipment like this were to be used in sensitive marine habitats such as the Monterey Bay. It will probably be worth ongoing study to avoid potentially serious problems that broad statistical analysis may not catch.
- jtriangle 3y ago
  Yeah, if you're looking to save the birds, the first order of business is to ban cats, because turns out those cute little guys are rather adept at bird murder.
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Apparently that isn't true and just shifting the blame away from the pesticide and agricultural industry which have decimated insect populations. Which are the food source for many birds. Much like blaming consumer's personal choices for CO2 emissions.
    - bjourne 3y ago
      "We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
      - amenhotep 3y ago
        This is the first time I've seen the statistic quoted with the distinction that it's about feral cats, and it makes a heck of a lot more sense now than it did when I had the impression they were saying the cats I've had, which were on the whole utterly useless at catching things, were secretly massacring birds by the dozen. Thanks for the drive by enlightenment :)
      - Tiktaalik 3y ago
        It's an apples and oranges sort of issue here. I have no doubt that stray and feral housecats in the cities and suburbs are killing great numbers of common house sparrows, but the things that are driving down numbers of endangered birds in rural and remote areas (where feral cats are not a problem) is habitat loss and the decline in food sources (ie. berries and bugs).
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  If tidal energy takes off, I'll guarantee you that - if it hasn't already happened - there will be chilling articles about dead fish and other sea populations.
justsomehnguy 3y ago
> In April 2022, Minesto announced a detailed plan for large-scale buildout of tidal energy arrays in the Faroe Islands. The large-scale buildout plan sets out a stepwise installation of tidal kite arrays, each with 20-40 MW installed capacity, at four verified locations.
aqme28 3y ago
A common blocker for offshore wind is people* complaining about seeing wind turbines on their formerly immaculate horizon. These don't have that problem. *: e.g. Ted Kennedy. Rich and politically connected people like to live on the coast
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  What's interesting is that we can stop off-shore wind projects for that reason, but can't seem to stop the advertising barges that run up and down the coastlines.
debok 3y ago
A kettle uses ~1.5KW, a geyser ~2KW, an oven ~5KW, a stove about ~3KW. These are fairly high estimates I got from some quick googling. If you add these all up, and account for some more appliances (HVAC, fridge/freezer etc.), I think it is safe to estimate that a household less than 20KW at peak, even though it is a fairly high estimate. So going backwards from there, 1.2MW = 1200KW and 1200KW / 20KW = 60 households at peak usage. Which is a very conservative estimate. For future reference I will use 1MW = 50 households as a conservative rule of thumb. Maybe 100 households per MW is closer to reality, but that feels fairly lenient to me.
- TotempaaltJ 3y ago
  > The current national average (through Q2 2022) of homes powered by a MW of solar is 173. https://www.seia.org/initiatives/whats-megawatt https://www.seia.org/initiatives/whats-megawatt
- jtc331 3y ago
  If the average home was using 10kW constant it be using 240 kWh a day, which is enormously high. In terms of average usage an average sized home in the US is much closer to 50kWh a day, so roughly 2kW average demand. That would mean 1 MW is enough for 500 homes on average. The one thing that doesn’t is peak demand load, say when everyone gets home from work and turns everything on at the same time or a particularly cold or hot day. Edit: the average US home uses just shy of 1000 kWh a month, or just over 30 kWh a day.
  - methyl 3y ago
    I’m really surprised by this data. In Poland, it’s around 2000 kWh/year, which is 6kWh/day - 5 times less!
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      The USA includes many places where air conditioning uses electricity, and some places where heating uses electricity. They also have huge and inefficient appliances, but that's probably a smaller impact on the figures.
tomtomtom777 3y ago
It is also a completely different scale. A 11M wind turbine has a 200m (!) rotor diameter. This thing is 12m.
- thfuran 3y ago
  But it's moving around through some larger area.
rootusrootus 3y ago
> modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW That sounds like the very largest of the most recent wind turbines. I think most of the in-production wind turbines people are used to seeing these days are closer to the 2 megawatt range.
jabits 3y ago
Actually, these seabed moorings can create rich, local eco-systems. I know local fishermen here in Maui are drawn to areas around the off-shore buoys... "The FADs are located 2.4 to 25 miles offshore and in depths of 80 to 1,510 fathoms." -- https://www.lahainanews.com/sports/local-sports/2016/05/19/state-places-new-fads-in-maui-waters/ https://www.lahainanews.com/sports/local-sports/2016/05/19/s...
philomath_mn 3y ago
Another reference point: the coal plant in my area outputs 2.3GW. It would take almost 2,000 of these tidal kites to match that output. I just don't understand why we spend so much time and money on renewables like this when Japan has an 8GW nuclear plant. If the US focused on building these en masse then we'd be in a great place.
- someuser2345 3y ago
  Because a lot of people hate nuclear energy, and don't support building new plants. So it's not really a choice between nuclear and renewables, it's a choice between renewables and fossil fuel power plants. Besides, I think there's definitely a benefit to decentralizing the power grid, and to learning how to tap different energy sources. I imagine that there are places in the world where nuclear is not appropriate, but tidal energy is abundant.
  - philomath_mn 3y ago
    > a lot of people hate nuclear energy, and don't support building new plants. So it's not really a choice between nuclear and renewables I guess that is my point: the hate is counter-productive. Neglecting nuclear was one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century.

by tetha 3y ago

out_of_protocol 3y ago

> too many problems for wildlife There were a meta-analysis regarding population of birds in areas with/without wind turbines, found no statistically significant difference (unlike coal, where difference was huge)

tetha 3y ago
Yep. I mostly meant for or rather caused by this kite. I wouldn't expect it intuitively, as it's just a big object in the water, not moving erratically or obstructing anything.
- thfuran 3y ago
  I guess erratic is in the eye of the beholder, but it's certainly moving.
- imzadi 3y ago
  It has a 39-foot wingspan and moves in a figure 8 pattern on a seabed tether. There's going to be at least some implication for local wildlife, but is it worse than the impacts of fossil fuels? I have no idea. It's definitely an interesting concept. I'm sure it will get more efficient and require a smaller footprint over time, assuming we invest in it.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    > There's going to be at least some implication for local wildlife, but is it worse than the impacts of fossil fuels? For that matter, how does it compare to the local impact of other watercraft?
m0llusk 3y ago
Like much statistical analysis there are some details that might not be well captured. Much of the opposition to wind power based on bird deaths is caused by the Altamont Pass facility which is placed in a golden eagle breeding area and has significantly disrupted that species. There could be similar risks here if generating equipment like this were to be used in sensitive marine habitats such as the Monterey Bay. It will probably be worth ongoing study to avoid potentially serious problems that broad statistical analysis may not catch.
jtriangle 3y ago
Yeah, if you're looking to save the birds, the first order of business is to ban cats, because turns out those cute little guys are rather adept at bird murder.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Apparently that isn't true and just shifting the blame away from the pesticide and agricultural industry which have decimated insect populations. Which are the food source for many birds. Much like blaming consumer's personal choices for CO2 emissions.
  - bjourne 3y ago
    "We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
    - amenhotep 3y ago
      This is the first time I've seen the statistic quoted with the distinction that it's about feral cats, and it makes a heck of a lot more sense now than it did when I had the impression they were saying the cats I've had, which were on the whole utterly useless at catching things, were secretly massacring birds by the dozen. Thanks for the drive by enlightenment :)
    - Tiktaalik 3y ago
      It's an apples and oranges sort of issue here. I have no doubt that stray and feral housecats in the cities and suburbs are killing great numbers of common house sparrows, but the things that are driving down numbers of endangered birds in rural and remote areas (where feral cats are not a problem) is habitat loss and the decline in food sources (ie. berries and bugs).
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
If tidal energy takes off, I'll guarantee you that - if it hasn't already happened - there will be chilling articles about dead fish and other sea populations.

justsomehnguy 3y ago

> In April 2022, Minesto announced a detailed plan for large-scale buildout of tidal energy arrays in the Faroe Islands. The large-scale buildout plan sets out a stepwise installation of tidal kite arrays, each with 20-40 MW installed capacity, at four verified locations.

aqme28 3y ago

A common blocker for offshore wind is people* complaining about seeing wind turbines on their formerly immaculate horizon. These don't have that problem. *: e.g. Ted Kennedy. Rich and politically connected people like to live on the coast

rootusrootus 3y ago
What's interesting is that we can stop off-shore wind projects for that reason, but can't seem to stop the advertising barges that run up and down the coastlines.

debok 3y ago

A kettle uses ~1.5KW, a geyser ~2KW, an oven ~5KW, a stove about ~3KW. These are fairly high estimates I got from some quick googling. If you add these all up, and account for some more appliances (HVAC, fridge/freezer etc.), I think it is safe to estimate that a household less than 20KW at peak, even though it is a fairly high estimate. So going backwards from there, 1.2MW = 1200KW and 1200KW / 20KW = 60 households at peak usage. Which is a very conservative estimate. For future reference I will use 1MW = 50 households as a conservative rule of thumb. Maybe 100 households per MW is closer to reality, but that feels fairly lenient to me.

TotempaaltJ 3y ago
> The current national average (through Q2 2022) of homes powered by a MW of solar is 173. https://www.seia.org/initiatives/whats-megawatt https://www.seia.org/initiatives/whats-megawatt
jtc331 3y ago
If the average home was using 10kW constant it be using 240 kWh a day, which is enormously high. In terms of average usage an average sized home in the US is much closer to 50kWh a day, so roughly 2kW average demand. That would mean 1 MW is enough for 500 homes on average. The one thing that doesn’t is peak demand load, say when everyone gets home from work and turns everything on at the same time or a particularly cold or hot day. Edit: the average US home uses just shy of 1000 kWh a month, or just over 30 kWh a day.
- methyl 3y ago
  I’m really surprised by this data. In Poland, it’s around 2000 kWh/year, which is 6kWh/day - 5 times less!
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    The USA includes many places where air conditioning uses electricity, and some places where heating uses electricity. They also have huge and inefficient appliances, but that's probably a smaller impact on the figures.

tomtomtom777 3y ago

It is also a completely different scale. A 11M wind turbine has a 200m (!) rotor diameter. This thing is 12m.

thfuran 3y ago
But it's moving around through some larger area.

rootusrootus 3y ago

> modern on-shore wind turbines seem to supply 3-4MW That sounds like the very largest of the most recent wind turbines. I think most of the in-production wind turbines people are used to seeing these days are closer to the 2 megawatt range.

jabits 3y ago

Actually, these seabed moorings can create rich, local eco-systems. I know local fishermen here in Maui are drawn to areas around the off-shore buoys... "The FADs are located 2.4 to 25 miles offshore and in depths of 80 to 1,510 fathoms." -- https://www.lahainanews.com/sports/local-sports/2016/05/19/state-places-new-fads-in-maui-waters/ https://www.lahainanews.com/sports/local-sports/2016/05/19/s...

philomath_mn 3y ago

Another reference point: the coal plant in my area outputs 2.3GW. It would take almost 2,000 of these tidal kites to match that output. I just don't understand why we spend so much time and money on renewables like this when Japan has an 8GW nuclear plant. If the US focused on building these en masse then we'd be in a great place.

someuser2345 3y ago
Because a lot of people hate nuclear energy, and don't support building new plants. So it's not really a choice between nuclear and renewables, it's a choice between renewables and fossil fuel power plants. Besides, I think there's definitely a benefit to decentralizing the power grid, and to learning how to tap different energy sources. I imagine that there are places in the world where nuclear is not appropriate, but tidal energy is abundant.
- philomath_mn 3y ago
  > a lot of people hate nuclear energy, and don't support building new plants. So it's not really a choice between nuclear and renewables I guess that is my point: the hate is counter-productive. Neglecting nuclear was one of the biggest blunders of the 20th century.