Does America's First Commercial Offshore Wind Farm Portend a Clean Energy Revolution? (thebulletin.org) 175
In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Slashdot reader Dan Drollette describes visiting one of North America's biggest experiments in renewable energy, off the coast of Rhode Island.
As the only commercial offshore wind farm in North America, Block Island is "setting the stage for what could be a rapid explosion in the number of commercial offshore windmills on the entire East Coast of the United States, assuming they leap the latest set of ever-changing legal hurdles set by fossil-fuel friendly regulators in Washington, DC." The goal of the Block Island test wind farm -- which started construction in the summer of 2015 and started generating some power in December 2016 -- is to see if it is technologically, environmentally, and scientifically possible to transfer offshore wind power technology from Europe to North America... This five-turbine, 30-megawatt endeavor has been effectively acting as a multi-year, real-world experiment in offshore wind power for the United States, paving the way for offshore wind farms on the northeast coast and the mid-Atlantic that could each be as much as 600 times the size of this test site, with hundreds of turbines generating electricity for hundreds of thousands of homes from just one full-scale, industrial-sized wind farm. There are more than a dozen large offshore "wind lease areas" suitable for wind farms currently up for bid from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, stretching from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Massachusetts alone is soliciting contracts for 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind development (half have now been sold), which is more than 50 times the size of this pilot project off of Block Island.... Once it is built and running, the Massachusetts project off Martha's Vineyard alone will provide enough energy to power at least 230,000 households, or about a third of the state's residential energy demand.
Other states are working on a similar gargantuan scale. All told, there are 28 offshore wind projects in the works on the East Coast, with a total capacity of 24 gigawatts, or 24,000 megawatts. To give a sense of the massive size of the generating power of the wind farms now in the works, the first commercial civilian nuclear reactor in the United States -- Massachusetts' Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, now decommissioned -- generated just 185 megawatts at its peak. But after decades of false starts and tangled litigation, a sea change appears to be occurring for offshore wind in the United States, as this country races to catch up with Northern Europe, where this renewable energy source has become increasingly mainstream and increasingly cheap... And these offshore wind projects could have a big impact on the environment. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the newly contracted wind farms would offset carbon emissions equivalent to removing about 270,000 cars from the road. They could play a key role in reducing the region's climate change footprint, while allowing the New England economy to grow...
Consequently, this handful of windmills in one test plot have been closely watched, studied, and debated, from multiple points of view, by many different "stakeholders," as the parlance goes -- including Wall Street analysts, investment firms, engineers, economists, sociologists, fisheries experts, environmental activists, historic preservationists, ornithologists, marine mammal biologists, Native American tribes, scallopers, long-liners, oystermen, sport fisherman, real estate investors, the tourism industry, and homeowners. And, of course, lawyers. Many, many lawyers...
The article notes that often windmill power companies "can piggyback on existing infrastructure, in the form of the high-tension power lines built for decommissioned nuclear plants or retired coal-fired plants such as the 1,500 megawatt Brayton Point Power Station on the mainland -- the last coal-burning plant in Massachusetts, which was shut down in May 2017..."
After talking to several locals, he concludes that "If there is a common thread to the comments, it is that the windmills are quiet and distant, and that with a steady and predictable source of power, islanders no longer have to worry about blackouts or brownouts... If nothing else, wind had turned out to be more reliable than ferrying barrels of diesel fuel to a generator located on an island 13 miles out to sea."
As the only commercial offshore wind farm in North America, Block Island is "setting the stage for what could be a rapid explosion in the number of commercial offshore windmills on the entire East Coast of the United States, assuming they leap the latest set of ever-changing legal hurdles set by fossil-fuel friendly regulators in Washington, DC." The goal of the Block Island test wind farm -- which started construction in the summer of 2015 and started generating some power in December 2016 -- is to see if it is technologically, environmentally, and scientifically possible to transfer offshore wind power technology from Europe to North America... This five-turbine, 30-megawatt endeavor has been effectively acting as a multi-year, real-world experiment in offshore wind power for the United States, paving the way for offshore wind farms on the northeast coast and the mid-Atlantic that could each be as much as 600 times the size of this test site, with hundreds of turbines generating electricity for hundreds of thousands of homes from just one full-scale, industrial-sized wind farm. There are more than a dozen large offshore "wind lease areas" suitable for wind farms currently up for bid from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, stretching from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Massachusetts alone is soliciting contracts for 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind development (half have now been sold), which is more than 50 times the size of this pilot project off of Block Island.... Once it is built and running, the Massachusetts project off Martha's Vineyard alone will provide enough energy to power at least 230,000 households, or about a third of the state's residential energy demand.
Other states are working on a similar gargantuan scale. All told, there are 28 offshore wind projects in the works on the East Coast, with a total capacity of 24 gigawatts, or 24,000 megawatts. To give a sense of the massive size of the generating power of the wind farms now in the works, the first commercial civilian nuclear reactor in the United States -- Massachusetts' Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, now decommissioned -- generated just 185 megawatts at its peak. But after decades of false starts and tangled litigation, a sea change appears to be occurring for offshore wind in the United States, as this country races to catch up with Northern Europe, where this renewable energy source has become increasingly mainstream and increasingly cheap... And these offshore wind projects could have a big impact on the environment. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the newly contracted wind farms would offset carbon emissions equivalent to removing about 270,000 cars from the road. They could play a key role in reducing the region's climate change footprint, while allowing the New England economy to grow...
Consequently, this handful of windmills in one test plot have been closely watched, studied, and debated, from multiple points of view, by many different "stakeholders," as the parlance goes -- including Wall Street analysts, investment firms, engineers, economists, sociologists, fisheries experts, environmental activists, historic preservationists, ornithologists, marine mammal biologists, Native American tribes, scallopers, long-liners, oystermen, sport fisherman, real estate investors, the tourism industry, and homeowners. And, of course, lawyers. Many, many lawyers...
The article notes that often windmill power companies "can piggyback on existing infrastructure, in the form of the high-tension power lines built for decommissioned nuclear plants or retired coal-fired plants such as the 1,500 megawatt Brayton Point Power Station on the mainland -- the last coal-burning plant in Massachusetts, which was shut down in May 2017..."
After talking to several locals, he concludes that "If there is a common thread to the comments, it is that the windmills are quiet and distant, and that with a steady and predictable source of power, islanders no longer have to worry about blackouts or brownouts... If nothing else, wind had turned out to be more reliable than ferrying barrels of diesel fuel to a generator located on an island 13 miles out to sea."
Off shore wind has high maintainance costs (Score:2)
Maybe this is a good idea. It puts the devices where the wind is usually blowing. But Britain has found that off-shore wind power has high maintenance costs, so I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
breathing fumes from coal powered plants has some maintenance costs for humans in my state, and our nuke plants I hear will cost a few bucks to decommission.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe this is a good idea. It puts the devices where the wind is usually blowing. But Britain has found that off-shore wind power has high maintenance costs, so I'm not sure.
Do you happen to know what they have been replacing the coal with? Which they have done rather spectacularly and if you want some encouraging pics/stats https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com] I know there is a lot of gas in the UK, but the picture for UK in the link (if you scroll down) pretty much only shows renewables as increasing.
Re:Off shore wind has high maintainance costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
??? No what, I'm saying exactly what you're saying, except my linked stats are more recent and imply a further decline in coal?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Perhaps the increased maintenance costs are justified by more constant winds. I know that Scotland is reported to be generating a lot of wind power, but perhaps it's land based.
The thing is, Britain has a lot more reliable winds, especially around Scotland, than most of the US does. So they may well be able to justify higher maintenance costs. Or perhaps if high winds are infrequent the maintenance costs would be lower?
But this thing was originally proposed back when it was clearly a polit
Re: (Score:2)
Not a linkable source. My source was an article in Science News a couple of, or perhaps three, years ago. (Well, actually a lots been happening, so four or five years is a possibility.)
Cheap, plentiful, reliable (Score:2)
Of course that means different things in different places, but as long as my energy supply remains all of the above I don't care if it comes from gas, nuclear, hydro, tidal, solar, wind or vegan organic pixie dust (in my case it is mostly all hydroelectric).
Many people on this planet - billions - don't have any of the above. Any solution that does not work to improve that is not a solution at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So if your kid gets asthma from breathing particulate matter from burning coal, then you don't care as long as your energy supply remains cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Or if the Earth warms to the point your kids and grandkids lead miserable lives, then you don't care as long as your energy supply remains cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Or if you manage to kill off major species of flora and fauna, then you don't care as long as your energy supply remains cheap, plentiful, and reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
coal was not on his list, actually. Unless you think that's what "vegan organic pixie dust" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Access to energy directly correlates to better standards of living and life expectancies.
Plenty of kids leading miserable lives right this very moment, no "if's" at all. If you ask them I'll bet potential asthma from a coal plant beats drinking untreated ditch water any day.
I'll file you as not being part of the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a perfect solution, but getting parts of the world that can over to sources of renewable energy is certainly a partial solution each with its own associated benefits. The idea that only solutions that solve all our problems at once are worth pursuing is short-sighted. Yes, we should also pursue solutions for people who lack access to the sources you mentioned but that doesn't mean switching people over to renewables they do ha
Before all the anti-American posters chime in (Score:5, Interesting)
These combined mean that offshore wind is relatively easy to build off of Europe, and even building close to shore gives access to unimpeded ocean winds. This is important for minimizing the length of underwater power conduits.
So Europe is really much better suited for offshore wind than the U.S. Just like the southwest U.S. is much better suited for solar than Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. west coast has a sharp dropoff near the coast. I'm in Southern California, and if you head just a few miles out, the water depth is already 1 mile. The islands here are in fact mountain peaks which rise from the ocean floor 1-2 miles below. Offshore wind here is almost completely unfeasible, despite the clear ocean winds.
Northern California has a pretty good continental shelf. And one can always take advantage of the prevailing westerly winds by building wind generation in the coastal hills.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but they are already experimenting with deep water turbines.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sc... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a west coast too ... and a long south coast from Texas till Florida.
The idea that the land shadows the wind at the east cost is greatly overrated anyway. The wind plants will be 10km if not 20km far out in the sea.
On top of that: people building wind farms usually measure the wind there for a year or longer first. Or would you not? Or they buy the data from agencies that recorded for decades.
The idea that the wind goes west to east always close to a coast is wrong anyway: https://www.windfinder. [windfinder.com]
If you have to ask then the answer is probably no. (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the rule on questions in headlines? The rule is that if the headline takes the form of a question then the best bet is that the answer is no.
Offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind, and that is almost certain to remain true. Offshore wind power might be cheaper than nuclear power right now but that can change with new nuclear power technologies, developing economy of scale, and shifting prices in material costs.
One problem wind power is likely to run into is the production of rare earth m
Re: (Score:2)
We can use wind for applications that can tolerate fluctuations, such as desalinating seawater. The water situation in the West being what it is, coastal cities will need to start making their own water on a really large scale.
Re: (Score:2)
One problem wind power is likely to run into is the production of rare earth metals.
No idea why you spread this myth al the times. You lie, plain and simple.
You got told 100 times, by many /. ers:
a) raw earths are not raw
b) they are mostly waste by other mining processes (especially if we talk about Niob, the only raw earth used in wind generators)
c) they are not essential, they are used because they are cheap at the moment and allow for stronger magnets
Why do you keep repeating lyes about raw earths?
Offsho
Re: (Score:2)
What are "raw earths"? Did you mean "rare earths"? Wind generators often use hundreds of pounds of rare earth elements in the form of neodymium and dysprosium. I'm not aware of any element named niob, did you mean niobium? If so its usage in wind turbines is quite rare/limited as it's properties of high strength, high heat resilience and low weight aren't often necessary for a fixed application like wind turbines. It is often used for aerospace applications and extreme high strength structural applicat
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I state anything that was "corrected" by anything you stated? You corrected none of my supposed lies. In fact you seem so upset by something that you could not even fashion a sensible reply. I believe that if you calmed down long enough to read what I actually wrote, instead of what you imagined I wrote, that there would likely be nothing to correct.
That said, I do believe I need to clarify a point. The production of rare earth elements in the USA is currently expensive because of regulations
Less preaching, more facts please (Score:2)
A couple things about this summary kind of annoy me, first off using capacity for renewables is often highly misleading. A wind farm with "24 gigawatts" will often produce less than half of that on average, as little as 25% for PV. Then they compare it to a very old nuclear power station producing only 185 Megawatts when most produce a Gigawatt or more. Then they chose the best possible scenario for a wind power farm, an isolated area that has to import fuel. Does it make sense there, quite likely. Doe
Strong argument for nuclear power? (Score:2)
What kind of surface area do the 28 wind farms collectively occupy? And their capacity assumes they are all up and running simultaneously ... a virtual impossibility. And that is compared to a dated singular nuclear power plant that could operate 24/7. Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Germany proves that there are days without wind and clouds. Then you need exactly the same backup capacity.
Or, something like this: http://altwissenschaft.ddnss.d... [ddnss.de]
The US east coast is in a much better position wrt the atlantic also more modern (taller larger windmills). A better comparison would be denmark (inb4 they import electricity during the summer at daytime, I know and expect them to eventually figure that one out).
Re: (Score:2)
As I've already mentioned when they import I'll add that they produce an excess during the coldest winter months and that the neighboring countries are quite happy about that, I'll expect offloading to inland US similarly. Denmark currently generates about half of their electricity from wind power alone and they are aiming higher. For clarity, I'm not trying to compare the whole of the US to denmark but the situation on the east coast.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact Denmark is actually a great example. Denmark alone might have some renewable energy instability, however Denmark is connected into a Europe wide grid which extends from Norway to Morocco and from Portugal to Ukraine. There is never a day when there isn't wind blowing somewhere in that grid, and even if it did, the hydro power from Scotland and Norway and the Molten Salt Solar power from Morocco would allow renewable energy to power Denmark even if it could generate no power of its own.
We aren't
Re: (Score:2)
In fact Denmark is actually a great example. Denmark alone might have some renewable energy instability, however Denmark is connected into a Europe wide grid which extends from Norway to Morocco and from Portugal to Ukraine. There is never a day when there isn't wind blowing somewhere in that grid, and even if it did, the hydro power from Scotland and Norway and the Molten Salt Solar power from Morocco would allow renewable energy to power Denmark even if it could generate no power of its own.
So that grid needs nothing other than solar, wind, and hydro? Is that your contention? That if the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing, there is enough hydro capacity to power the entire grid? Or that Scottish wind alone can power the grid?
Re: (Score:2)
We told you already often enough: the wind is always blowing, moron.
Yes, in 30 or 40 years the wind in west Europe (Denmark, Scotland, Portugal etc.) will be able to power half of the european grid alone. No idea what is so mysterious about it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany proves that even a small country always has wind. And most of the time if we have a slack, we import power, it is just uneconomical to fire up mothballed plants, idiot
So you always have wind, but you have to import power. You claim you can run on wind and solar, and that the wind is always blowing is your justification. But you also say you have to import power. Those two statements do NOT align. Idiot, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Small European" was in reference to Denmark, not Germany. Fluctuations was said to balance out over the grid and it does, the whole of EU and then some is interconnected. The worst thing that has happened is that energy prices has at times turned negative due to surplus, luckily no consumers were affected nor company profits harmed during the incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
EU energy costs a boatload more than in the US. Germany and Denmark have some of the most expensive energy in the world. I pay 4c/kWh Germany averages 40c/kWh and has peaked above a whole euro.
Re: (Score:2)
The lefties said the fluctuations of wind and solar generation would balance out over the entirety of Germany. It does not.
It absolutely does. [powerpulse.net] Germany could just use a bit more solar capacity relative to wind capacity than what it has now, for even better balancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what mate. It'll get built anyway, and in a few years, you can have the satisfaction of saying "told you so". Or not. The UK just announced a third tranche of renewables projects for 7m more home, with a strike price as low as £40 per MWh. That's down from £100 in 2015. So you carry on with your very assured assurances that it's all ridiculous and impossible and a lefty project and out in the real world, engineers and financiers and big business will crack on deploying the stuff you t
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is the biggest economy in Europe and geographically sized 900x500kms. The lefties said the fluctuations of wind and solar generation would balance out over the entirety of Germany. It does not. And it will most probably not do that in America, either. There are not sufficient power lines for this in America, either. And then you have the weather. It does not play according to propaganda.
Here's a non-partisan outlook.
You might be surprised that one does not need to be your boogieman "lefty" to understand that there are multiple different ways to generate power.
Coal and nuclear power generation stations are not online 100 percent of the time. Yes, there has to be a lot of backup capacity,
Ever cost out a backup reactor and backup steam turbines? The cost of refuelling a reactor is nothing to be sneezed at, and working with multiple power sources is not a matter of politics.
You need to
Solved loong ago. (Score:2)
Pumped storage is readily available, and very efficient. The only counter-argument is "doesn't look good". Or deliberately falsely assuming the usage of existing lakes with wildlife.
Evaporation is trivially solved with a plastic sheet on top of the water. Even a thin one will do. .. connect your power lines ... done.
Any mine, on a mountain top or in a hole, will do. Line it with pool liner or clay, put a minimalist roof above it, lay some tubes from it to a river, with generators in them
Here, in the west of
Re: Solved loong ago. (Score:2)
Then there is California, lives by ocean, has elevated area with lots of fires and water shortage, does not know what to do. Desalination membrane tech is getting super efficient, but for power storage and fire control salt water reservoirs may work, with desalination up top for excess. Seems like a no brainer to me to develop this, what is the economic value of terraforming a place like Vegas into a land of green fruit trees, not even considering the ecological value of making it a carbon sink and the coo
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny to see how the lefties are getting angry, when facts are presented.
You're so intent on starting a shouting match, that you're getting shrill just talking to yourself.
You do realise that's what you did: Replied to your own post, complaining about the tone of the debate..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's such a huge problem if you just use high efficiency gas turbine generators as backup e.g. 20% of the time instead of 80% of the time. Gas turbines are cheap to make and expensive to run (compared to wind), whereas wind and solar are more expensive to build, but virtually free to run.
You also get the benefit of lower air pollution whilst they are not running.
I have insulation in my house and also a gas heater. I could have extreme amounts of insulation and no heating at all but that woul
Re: (Score:2)
Gas turbines are not cheap to make.
A single blade of the turbine costs the equivalent of a small modern car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize how stupid that post is?
Made me shake my head also.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
did you ever visit a gas turbine plant?
Did you ever see one?
Did you ever ask or got told how expensive they are?
I did all the above, you obviously not.
A single blade costs as much as a VW Golf ... idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
[sarcasm]You’re joking right? I assumed I could dig around my sofa for loose coins and pay for a new turbine. I mean by your post I have to assume all power generation equipment like wind turbines, coal boilers, nuclear reactors, and solar panels are given away for free at my local gas station when I buy a full tank of petrol.[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Half baked ideas meaning the days you have adequate wind, you don't have to pay for fossil fuels and there is less pollution AND there is revenue generation. On days when there is not enough wind, you were exactly where you were if you didn't have wind power. So what's the problem?
The problem is the capital expense in needing windmills and solar panels with enough fossil fuel generation capacity to fill in when there isn't enough wind and sun. This means higher energy costs for having to cover for the land, materials, labor, and maintenance on two redundant electrical production systems. If only there was a source of electricity that was both low in CO2 emissions and as reliable as coal. Oh, wait, there is. That is called nuclear power.
I see it's that you want an all or nothing solution to this one problem when a partial solution still has benefits.
You are correct that wind and solar is a par
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the capital expense in needing windmills and solar panels with enough fossil fuel generation capacity to fill in when there isn't enough wind and sun.
That relies on the premise that there is enough fossil fuel capacity. Considering that in this exact case, Germany has stated it needs to build more fossil fuel plants and wind farms and solar farms. So your premise is wrong.
This means higher energy costs for having to cover for the land, materials, labor, and maintenance on two redundant electrical production systems.
That relies on the premise that fossil fuel is redundant to wind. It does not take into account that currently wind and solar augments current fossil fuel capacity.
If only there was a source of electricity that was both low in CO2 emissions and as reliable as coal. Oh, wait, there is. That is called nuclear power.
It's not an all or nothing approach. Using multiple sources at the same time is possible.
You are correct that wind and solar is a partial solution. The rest of the solution is nuclear and hydro power.
At it's worst solar and wind is a
Re: (Score:2)
Half baked ideas meaning the days you have adequate wind, you don't have to pay for fossil fuels and there is less pollution AND there is revenue generation. On days when there is not enough wind, you were exactly where you were if you didn't have wind power. So what's the problem?
The problem is the capital expense in needing windmills and solar panels with enough fossil fuel generation capacity to fill in when there isn't enough wind and sun. This means higher energy costs for having to cover for the land, materials, labor, and maintenance on two redundant electrical production systems. If only there was a source of electricity that was both low in CO2 emissions and as reliable as coal. Oh, wait, there is. That is called nuclear power.
I see it's that you want an all or nothing solution to this one problem when a partial solution still has benefits.
You are correct that wind and solar is a partial solution. The rest of the solution is nuclear and hydro power. It appears that like the USA there is an irrational opposition to nuclear and hydro in Europe.
I'm quite confident that this irrational fear of nuclear power will fade fairly quickly, as energy prices rise and people come to realize their fears in nuclear power were based on outdated information or just outright lies.
Bringing up Chernobyl as a reason to oppose new nuclear power makes as much sense as bringing up the 1972 Ford Pinto as a reason to not buy a brand new Honda Civic.
March 28th 1979
There hasn't been a new nuclear plant planned in the United States since. ( I'm from PA )
Move on
Re: (Score:2)
March 28th 1979
There hasn't been a new nuclear plant planned in the United States since. ( I'm from PA )
That's not true.
Move on
No, I won't.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a problem with numbers.
Hint: how much bigger than Germany is the US? Hu? 5 times more inhabitants and: how much space?
Re: (Score:2)
"lefties"
"lefties"
"lefties"
"lefties"
"lefties"
Admit it, one of them fucked your partner!
Seriously, stop whining about politics and stick to facts and solutions. You'll get much further in life and have more friends.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll quickly find that is true for any political leaning when they have strayed enough far afield.
Re: (Score:2)
Marxists are Power-Grabbers. They want one thing - political power and then they want to convert this into corruption-based wealth. One way to political power is to play the "world ends soon, if we do not get into power" playbook.
Yeah. that's sooo different from the right-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Germany proves that even a small country always has wind.
And most of the time if we have a slack, we import power, it is just uneconomical to fire up mothballed plants, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
always has wind... we import power
Yeah, having a hard time reconciling those two statements...
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are more retarded than you look on /.
We have what? 30% wind production max?
Obviously if it drops to 15% we have to either fire up a idle plant or import power. Or switch off the lights. The point is: we never had no wind. If we have no wind then we most likely have a global catastrophe and everyone is running ...
Re: (Score:2)
And? what is the problem with fluctuation?
Sorry, you should have joined /. 10 years ago, I'm tired to fix misconceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need exactly the same backup capacity.
You need massive backup capacity in any grid. And in any resilient grid, you *already* have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany proves that there are days without wind and clouds. Then you need exactly the same backup capacity.
Wait - is this a joke, a reference to the time that Fox News had a solar power "expert" that claimed Germany was sunnier than the USA?
Just some thoughts here.
The Allegheny front in the US Northeast has a very steady source of wind.
The power Grid is designed to switch around local generation outages, even if a wind farm is in the doldrums at the moment. Steam turbines are not 100 percent duty cycle. They must be maintained (and can fail) just like any other power generation method. Reactors need refuel
Re: (Score:2)
So Germany is now bringing in more natural gas capacity so they can actually shut down some coal plants.
That's a net positive, as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a net positive, as far as I'm concerned.
Natural gas beats coal as a baseload, but an even better way of eliminating coal would have been to keep the nuclear plants open.
Re: (Score:2)
would have been to keep the nuclear plants open.
Germany's population voted to close them. The next legislation prolonged the runtime. Then backpedaled when Fukushima happened. Half of the nukes are still running.
You probably have no idea about the political climate in Germany and the powder barrels our nukes are.
Trying to force the population to keep them is close to causing a civil war. I know plenty who would fight in the first ranks. We don't want them. We don't want the waste, we don't know where to put
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lignite we can mine in our lands.
Gas we have to import.
Imagine the uproar on /. if Germany would import more gas from Russia :P
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks.
A natural gas plant takes more than 10 years to build.
Wind economy is changing because of changes in feed in tariffs.
That means we installed less this year than anticipated last year.
That is all. I really wonder why ACs from foreign countries believe they have a clue about Germany's energy industry. Hint: you have not.
Re: (Score:2)
A natural gas plant takes more than 10 years to build.
/quote> Another complete lie, easily dismissed with a simple google search, further re-enforcing your complete lack of credibility and willingness to say anything. The rest of your statements make no sense, are a sign of how confused you must be.
Re: (Score:2)
You have laws to obey, there is no way to build a gas plant in Germany faster than 10 or 15 years.
A simply train station in Stuttgard took 30 years to be started and is not finished since 10 years.
Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
A simply train station in Stuttgard took 30 years to be started and is not finished since 10 years.
Pretty much destroys my preconceived ideas about German efficiency. I'm sure glad their building my car did not take that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple train station in Stuttgard took 30 years to be started and is not finished since 10 years.
There is no reason for either a gas plant or the Stuttgart train station to have taken nearly that long, but though Europeans are supposed to adore their trains, the flat-earth lobby decided to oppose Stuttgart, making it the German equivalent of the Thirty Meter Telescope. They will be lucky if it ever gets built.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is: laws. Public intervention.
And the reason that they build since 10 years is pretty simple. It is the same like with everything: the lowest bidder gives a half assed plan. The local government hires the local bidder not grasping the half assed plan will never work.
People who show up alternatives (they could have build a new train station at the edge of the city instead of rebuilding the old one) get ridiculed
But officially it is called Stuttgart 21 (for 2021) ... as we are close to 2020, I doub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have reading problems.I did not say we can not build/rebuild a train station in 30 years. I said the plan was public since 30, now 40 years ... get a reading aide. Since close to 10 years they are building it ... with slow progress. Just stopped there a few days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a 300MW plant ... sigh, are am I surrounded by idiots?
A gas plant replacing a coal plant is supposed to deliver 2 - 3 GW ... not a tenth of that.
Very bright of you to google and link the first hit which has nothing to do with a "real gas plant".
On top of that, from the article (did you read it? I don't thinks so): The new block will not serve the market, but will be available at short notice any time network stability is at risk, Uniper said.
It is a balancing/reserve power plant, a gas turbine, basica
Re: (Score:2)
It is a 300MW plant ... sigh, are am I surrounded by idiots? A gas plant replacing a coal plant is supposed to deliver 2 - 3 GW ... not a tenth of that.
Um no. You never said any of that. You said specifically: "A natural gas plant takes more than 10 years to build." That's it. Which is false. When caught with posting something blatantly false, now you're trying to lie. By the way, some coal plants in Germany [wikipedia.org] are not 2 - 3 GW. So another lie?
Very bright of you to google and link the first hit which has nothing to do with a "real gas plant".
Which shows you don't do a lot of basic research if a quick Google search is all that requires to debunk your lies.
On top of that, from the article (did you read it? I don't thinks so): The new block will not serve the market, but will be available at short notice any time network stability is at risk, Uniper said. It is a balancing/reserve power plant, a gas turbine, basically a jet engine ... no idea if they do anything to reuse the exhaust.
Again, that's not what you said. In fact you doubled-down: "You have laws to obey, there is no way to b
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion was about:
"German is/should/will build new gas plants to replace coal plants"
Which is wrong, we don't do that.
A gas plant replacing a coal plant takes the same time to build like a coal plant. Aka about 10 years.
You link a gas turbine, which has nothing to do with the topic.
So: no basic facts, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
A natural gas plant takes more than 10 years to build.
Bullshit
https://www.powerengineeringin... [powerengineeringint.com]
3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
And how long does it take to get the permit to build it?
The laws settled etc.
Sorry, gas plant takes as long as coal plant, no difference.
No one builds in Germany a gas plant in 3 years. Or you have a weird definition of a gas plant. Obviously you can build a small bio gas plant based on modified diesel engines quickly. But not a gas turbine or a boiler based gas plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the irony!
Re: (Score:2)
In theory yes, in practice not.
No idea what you are talking about. We vote every 4 years for a new parliament. So most certainly the timeframe to even change anything in law is 4 to 8 years. Are you really that stupid?
The permit in itself is not the problem. It is the la suits by the people around the construction site who want to prevent it being constructed.
Are you really that stupid? What about your credibility? Always interfering into discussion where you have no clue about the topic, that is your credi
Re: (Score:2)
On December 20, 2007, a planned 18-month trial operation period of Siemens SGT5-8000H, the world's largest and most powerful gas turbine (capable of generating 375MW),[1] started. After trial period the plant expanded to a high-efficiency combined-cycle power plant with a total output of about 570 MW[2] and an efficiency of 60%.[3] The unit 4 was commissioned in 2011.
Irsching Unit 6 will take 3 years completing in 2022. The previous unit, Unit 4 took 4 years with an 18 month trial period. So in this one plant there were 2 examples of a natural gas plant taking less than 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The point you are missing is that it takes a decade in Germany -- whether the reason is technical or legal is immaterial, because it still takes ten years. It doesn't matter if it's done faster elsewhere -- it can't be done faster in Germany.
Stop being obtuse.
Re: (Score:2)
The point you are missing is that it takes a decade in Germany -- whether the reason is technical or legal is immaterial, because it still takes ten years. It doesn't matter if it's done faster elsewhere -- it can't be done faster in Germany.
Um no. It does not. Irsching 4 took 4 years with a 18 month trial. Without the trial period, Irsching 5 took 2 years. At this point you've been present with multiple examples, but will not admit that factually you're wrong. What you're trying to do is bullshit your way out of what are facts by bringing in irrelevant miniature. By your logic it took Honda over 100 years to build my one Civic because it took them that long to invent the technology and not the months it really takes to build a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you perhaps found a single counter example?
The general rule is: a gas plant takes as long as a coal plant.
No idea what you want to nitpick about it. And the articles you linked don't include any information about how long the preparation phase was. So: have a good day.
And no., a gas turbine is not the same as a boiler, or nuclear reactor with a boiler. It probabaly has a CF of 10% or something, providing balancing power and not "real power".
I'm getting tired about nitpicking idiots, but I read your l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and both are gas turbines
And not the gas plants we are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you do understand that a single gas turbine producing 400MW is considered a gas plant right? By your logic a nuclear power plant with only one reactor is just a reactor. A coal plant with a single boiler is just a boiler. It is a gas plant as stated in all the press releases, literature, documentation, etc. You're just wrong and refuse to accept it.
Second, do some research. Irsching Unit 5 consists of 2 gas turbines and 1 steam turbine. It was built in 2 years. Again you're just wrong.
Condescension fixes nothing (Score:2)
Oh fuck off. I imagine you're from the European Union somewhere. Have fun fixing the 50% of your countries economies that are outright broken. You know English so maybe you're British. Yeah, amazing governance there right now.
The US is certainly not perfect but condescension fixes nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't taken this post to its logical extreme. You need to keep guessing random countries the OP may be from and insult them all. Canada? Australia? South Africa? Keep going. Those condescending foreigners need to be put in their place. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Nope
Re: (Score:2)
If we do not vote your ilk immediately into office, the skies will fall. Thank god you proved in Venezuela, Cambodia and Russia how excellent your policies are.
Right, so let's subsidise fossil fuels whilst making sure that coal miners are guaranteed jobs, even if their industry is completely obsolete, because those are really "right wing", conservative, small government policies.
Hint, your whole left, right, "liberal" / "conservative" frame for looking at the world is poisoning your mind. Try thinking a little bit more broadly rather than treating politics as if it was a football team issue.
Re: (Score:2)
But Ma' Team Win!!!
LIBRUL TEERS!!!
[sigh]
Re: (Score:2)
If we do not vote your ilk immediately into office, the skies will fall. Thank god you proved in Venezuela, Cambodia and Russia how excellent your policies are.
Right, so let's subsidise fossil fuels whilst making sure that coal miners are guaranteed jobs, even if their industry is completely obsolete, because those are really "right wing", conservative, small government policies.
Hint, your whole left, right, "liberal" / "conservative" frame for looking at the world is poisoning your mind. Try thinking a little bit more broadly rather than treating politics as if it was a football team issue.
You hit the nail on the head.
They know the current president is a complete piece of shit that is destroying their country but it's more important to say fuck you to "the left" - with their stupid fucking facts and human rights and nerd science.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that is just big-lie propaganda at its best
Sure the President who openly supports the expansion of coal... is a revolution of clean energy
The President who wants to eliminate California from continuing to having higher clean energy standards... is a revolution of clean energy
The President who claims that wind energy turbines cause cancer... is a revolution ion clean energy
just what sort of fucktards do you think you are trying to lie to here?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... it isn't the fucking capitalist fossil fuel companies that want the world to keep using fossil fuels is MUST be markists...
do you get paid to astro turf this?
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the climate :P
Re: (Score:2)
He was (unskillfully, as usual) referring to low frequency noise that some people claim have made them ill when they live next to large wind farms. Windfall [wikipedia.org] refers to this controversially claimed phenomenon.
And there's truth to the rest of what he said (outside of the cancer comment). Your home values do plummet when wind farms are near your home (NIMBY), so like any other power generation source you don't want it near your home or anywhere you spend a significant amount of time.
So, cancer? No. Annoying or
Re: (Score:2)
Clean energy here = toxic mess in someone else country.
No, it doesn't
Making Apple watches has nothing to do with clean energy.
but thanks a ton for more misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Clean energy here = toxic mess in someone else country.
No, it doesn't
Making Apple watches has nothing to do with clean energy.
but thanks a ton for more misinformation.
I guess you didn't read the article. It's not Apple Watches per se, but the toxic nightmare needed to create the rare earth magnets that wind turbines desperately need.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a scientific fact like global warming and inevitable climate change and evolution.
It is a fact that the climate will change, no matter what we do.
Nuclear is free energy, for all intents and purposes and there is zero reason to avoid that fact.
Well, it's as "free" as wind and sun. We still have to build a machine to capture and convert the energy. The cost of nuclear fuel compared to "free" wind and sun is so small that it may as well be considered free.
The only question is, which design should we go with for the next generation. Even the old naval design is better for the planet than oil and coal, and they are incredibly primitive compared to modern, far safer, designs.
There's room for both in my opinion. I've conversed with real and actual nuclear engineers by internet forums and they will admit there are still some advantages to current 3rd generation designs over many proposed 4th generation d