5 ms·
Only 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance https://www.waterp
by barbegal 1y ago
Only 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/sae-secures-loan-for-turbine-redeployment-at-meygen-9599438/ https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/sae-secures-loan-for...
It's a nice idea but costly compared to solar even in places like Scotland.
- badestrand 1y agoI would love to see a complete cost comparison with solar. 1.5 MW is nothing to scoff at, so if it costs a bit in maintenance that's okay. But overall costs would be great to know.
- theptip 1y agoAlso there is theoretically power in the GW range to be harvested here (specifically, Scotland’s tidal flows), so it’s worth investing a substantial sum to figure this tech out.
- mlyons1340 1y agoTexas’ capacity was 113000 MW yesterday so 1.5MW doesn’t seem significant. Am I understanding this wrong? https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- saberience 1y agoWhy are you comparing a single turbine in Scotland to the entirety of the state of Texas's supply (thousands of turbines)?
- mousethatroared 1y agohundreds of thousands.
- regularfry 1y agoWrong comparator. 1.5MW nominal output is comparable to a large wind turbine. For instance, there's the https://www.esig.energy/wiki-main-page/general-electric-1-5-mw-series/ https://www.esig.energy/wiki-main-page/general-electric-1-5-..., which has ~40m blades. The AR1500 (which is what these tidal generators are using) is smaller, with "only" 9m blades. So it's significant in that these aren't toy devices, they fit in a very similar place in the engineering ecosystem as conventional wind. They should be a real competitor.
- pyrale 1y agoIn 2025, the large commercially deployed wind turbines are like 15MW for offshore and 6MW for onshore. GE's 1.5MW models are 20 years old.
- _fizz_buzz_ 1y agoCan you even still buy new 1.5MW wind turbines?
- Mashimo 1y agoYeah, and a solar panel might only produce 250 watt, that would mean solar is also not significant /s
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoAre you really comparing a single experimental turbine's handwaved output with the consumption of an entire state with a population as big as the bigger European countries?
- pyrale 1y ago1.5mw is likely a nameplate capacity for the turbine, not the actual output (which should be labeled in GWh per year). The article likely double-dips on this by saying that 6MW could provide for 7k homes, which it obviously can’t at peak use.
- cycomanic 1y agoWhy is it obvious that it can't? I just looked up the numbers and Scotlands absolute peak demand is 6.5 GW and there are about 2.5 M households. With those numbers they would need 18MW for 7000k households, but that ignores all commercial contributors to peak demand (I could not find data on commercial vs residential demand), but it seems to me the number isn't completely off. Also I would say the expression "powering a home" usually implies average demand not peak demand.
- pyrale 1y agoWell, with 6.5 GW for 2.5M households, you’re at a peak around 2.6kW per home. Assuming these turbines are always at nameplate production, which they are not, they produce 6MW. Spread among 7k homes, that’s less than 1kW, which is not a lot. Given the previously stated peak of 2.6kW per household, 6MW would cover about 2300 homes. The only way you could get to this kind of number would be if you calculate the average use for a household over a year. But then you would have to compare it to the plant’s yearly production rather than its nameplate capacity. Wikipedia quotes MeyGen at 10.2GWh in 2023, that means 1.14MW on average instead of 6MW. Assuming perfect storage, that would mean an average of 163W per house for 7000 houses. That is barely enough for a fridge. > Also I would say the expression "powering a home" usually implies average demand not peak demand. That's my issue. Comparing average demand to nameplate capacity is dishonest.
- hgomersall 1y agoIt was you that decided it was nameplate capacity. The actual statement is "producing" 1.5MW. Tidal flows are sufficiently predictable that it's not an unreasonable expectation to have reliable power outputs.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- padjo 1y agoOne benefit that’s difficult to quantify is that the power is extremely predictable compared to other renewables.
- danans 1y agoIt can be quantified by comparing it to the cost of solar or wind plus storage.
- padjo 1y agoIt’s not straightforward though is it. It depends on your base load profile, your ability to time shift loads, what level of modal and geographic aggregation you have etc. i.e. not something you can just stick into an LCOE calculation and call it a day.
- danans 1y ago> It’s not straightforward though is it. Sure, there are many parameters to consider, but it's the kind of thing energy analysts do all the time.
- terribleperson 1y agoIf one made it six years, it seems like it should eventually be possible to build turbines that reliably make it that long.
- micromacrofoot 1y agoYes, 1 success out of 4 test flights — good news, it's possible!
- soperj 1y agoSo exact same results as the falcon 1. Seems like they did okay with the Falcon 9.
- dinfinity 1y agoGPs link doesn't even show what was claimed ("The other 3 have needed costly maintenance"). From that link: "The first of these turbines is scheduled for redeployment in May 2022, with the final turbine to be deployed in March 2023, complete with a retrofitted wet mate connection system, which more than halves the costs of future turbine recoveries and deployments." "The company’s AR150 turbine was re-deployed last month, after being out of the water for upgrade and maintenance work." The single long-running turbine can be compared to the upgraded turbines to measure the effect of the upgrades, and it provides the headlines this thread is about. The upgrades themselves are also clearly valuable R&D work.
- lostlogin 1y agoThis needs to be a reply to the original comment.
- vasco 1y ago> GPs link doesn't even show what was claimed ("The other 3 have needed costly maintenance"). > complete with a retrofitted wet mate connection system, which more than halves the costs of future turbine recoveries and deployments." Why do they need recoveries if not for maintenance? Why did they need to cut the cost of maintenance if no costly maintenance were needed? > after being out of the water for upgrade and maintenance work." How is this not literally validating GPs comment? Anyone can say "the new ones won't need maintenance and the only reason we took them out was to improve them", but they could've worked on better ones and deployed them without removing existing ones. Removing existing ones mean they broke. So until the new ones last as long, GPs analysis is the correct one.
- Havoc 1y agoThat's useless for commercial operation, but for a trial run perhaps not terrible. If 1/4 make it then you at least know it can be done and hopefully learned a couple key failure modes from it
- Goronmon 1y agoOnly 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance As opposed to other forms of energy production which have free/zero maintenance?
- insane_dreamer 1y ago> costly maintenance all systems require maintenance, so "costly" is relative; would need more specifics to determine whether this is a cost effective solution or not
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- magicalhippo 1y agoThis[1] article states the following: To remind, the MeyGen project’s Phase 1A involved the installation of the AR1500 onto a gravity-based foundation, alongside three other AH1000 MK1 turbines, to form an array of 6MW. From what I've found, the AR1500 has just had routine quarter-life maintenance[2], but I can't find anything concrete right now which of the four made the 6 year milestone. I do note that in the brochure[3] for the AR1500 they claim three service intervals every 6 1/4 years, rather than four service intervals as indicated by the article. [1]: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/simec-atlantis-troubleshooting-redeployment-ops-for-meygen-tidal-turbines/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/simec-atlantis-troubleshooti... [2]: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-to-be-redeployed-in-single-offshore-operation/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-t... [3]: https://simecatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AR1500-Brochure-Final-1.pdf https://simecatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AR1500-...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- asdff 1y agoI assume corrosion is to blame? Crazy how much ocean facing stuff is still done with painted steel. You'd think aluminum and carbon fiber or even plastic would be making strides but it's still the iron age in many ways it seems.
- zikzak 1y agoAll industrial generators undergo regular shutdowns for maintenance and recalibration. This is costly and time consuming when they are on land. Also, I am thinking about all the ocean factors beyond salt corrosion. There's tons of crap in the water beyond salt and minerals. Like fine grit suspended in it. Plus the tidal forces etc.
- spandrew 1y agoCarbon fibres tend to crack under extreme torque.
- saturnV 1y agoCarbon fibres themselves may be corrosion resistent, but the fibers by themselves are like a fabric. If you want a solid part instead of cloth, you need to encase the fibers in a resin. Imagine it like a piece of cloth soaked in beeswax or candle wax: it is solid like the resin but if you pull on it, it has the strength of the fibers of the cloth. The resins used for carbon fibers are usually very bad at contact with water over long periods of time. Even those in aerospace applications require coating/paint if exposed moisture over time. It’s a plastic, even the best ones don’t do so well in water after a few months. Furthermore, the damage that moisture does to the resin can be difficult to detect and even more difficult if not impossible to fix. It requires clean rooms, skilled labor and machinery that you don’t have in the middle of an ocean. Then take iron corrosion: it is easy to spot by naked eye, it may not be easy to repair, but it is relatively simple to “halt” further damage by removing the rust and adding new paint. Don’t get me wrong: carbon fibers are amazing, but sometimes the “boring” solution is best. PS: steel alloys and coatings can be amazingly high tech too, it’s amazing what can be engineered.
- semi-extrinsic 1y ago
- os2warpman 1y agoI'm not a turbine, or power generation, expert but I am almost 100% sure that no non-solar power generation method can operate without being taken down periodically for maintenance. How do the maintenance costs (and intervals) of these compare to gas/steam turbines?
- KolibriFly 1y agoEven that one proves it's possible, which is huge for an industry that's been stuck in pilot mode for years
- walrus01 1y agoOver many years, I've yet to hear of an ocean based power generating system that comes anywhere near the $ per kWh cost produced by just covering some less-useful land in ground mount photovoltaics. Private, entirely for profit companies, have recently answered large government tenders in the middle east to sell power at the equivalent of $0.05 USD per kWh. They are fairly confident that they can make a profit doing this, even with the cost to incur the long term debt to privately build a massive solar power plant. The cumulative amount of solar power being produced within Germany right now is a good example of its practical use in a less sunny climate. In terms of placing things in the ocean, hiring the sort of offshore work vessel with a built-in crane can go and place or remove multi ton apparatus is very costly. Maritime construction for things like laying coastal submarine cable, building piers and docks and marinas, setting and maintaining marker buoys isn't cheap. Laying and maintaining HV AC or DC submarine cables in salt water is also particularly known to be expensive. Hiring a 36'-42' aluminum landing craft for coastal construction projects, with fuel and crew can be easily $500 an hour. Labor and vehicle costs are greatly increased compared to doing things on dry land.
- gleenn 1y agoI think the charm for a cloudy place like Scotland is that a system like this is unaffected by poor light supply. Your photovoltaics aren't going to fair nearly so well there hence this solution.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago> covering some less-useful land in ground mount photovoltaics. Doesn't even need to be less-useful land (especially in western Europe, ground is becoming a scarce resource), put PV on flat rooves or add them over open car parks. Also helps alleviate pressure on the overstressed energy grid by generating and using power more locally. But, local power is (overall) a lot more costly than major centralized power generation projects, like a wind farm or what have you.
- mrspuratic 1y agoIronically, renewables tend to put a different kind of stress on the grid: frequency. In Ireland the grid can't handle windy days, so there are ROCOF issues and "dispatch down" events which means clean energy is lost.
- varispeed 1y agoImagine if we gave up making cars because we had some failures initially. Everything is costly in the beginning.
- dietr1ch 1y agoWell, they just need to use just the ones that don't require maintenance.