The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power

[jpak]

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/footnotes/2006/07/31/the_allure_of_deepwater_wind_power

European experience with offshore wind farms in relatively shallow costal waters is a maturing technology. With a dozen operational windfarms built over the last 12 years in waters up to 60 feet deep and with 20 or more in the construction and permitting stage their economic, environmental and safety issues have been largely addressed. These shallow water windfarms make use of well developed simple monopole foundations driven deep into the seabed or, so called “gravity bases”, concrete structures much like a flat bottom Christmas tree stand that are floated in place, submersed and filled with rock.

Certainly far offshore winds in deep water are more plentiful and stronger than those nearer the coast. And the lure of such development is understandable from the potential of enormous wind energy production. However technical viability and economic practicality lay somewhere in the future. The question is how far in the future? And what must be done to get there? And must we wait?

Future deepwater windfarms in over 60 feet of water or so will require much more expensive multi-leg structures or floating platforms for depths up to several hundred feet. This technology is being explored by energy companies with experience in offshore oil and gas platforms. Currently such construction is possible but its economic viability and operational performance is far from reality.

For example, the first deepwater demonstration project now in the permitting stage is undertaken by Talisman Energy, an oil and gas producer in the North Sea. It will consist of two newly designed five-megawatt (MW) wind turbines 14 miles off the Scottish coast in 150 feet of water. Perched on top of four-legged undersea lattice-type foundation structures, the two wind turbines will provide power to nearby oil and gas platforms in their Beatrice complex. The total cost of this project is $58 million dollars provided by Talisman, Scottish and Southern Energy (UK), and three government agencies <1>. This cost does not include the expensive high-voltage undersea cables that would be required to bring wind power ashore. Talisman will collect performance data, look for ways to reduce costs and develop operating procedures over five years to examine the feasibility and benefits of creating a future commercial deepwater wind farm at this site <2>.

<more>

[liberal N proud]

1. I would prefer to look at windmills off the coast of Florida than oil rigs

Not that I want to see anything on the horizon when looking out from the beach, but Windmills would be much less harmful to the environment and less likely to leave tar on the beach where I tend to walk when on vacation. And the wind will never stop blowing.

[yellowcanine]

2. I think we have just scratched the surface on all of these alternative

"clean" forms of energy. In my opinion, if we would put a fraction of the money we spend on defending sources of oil, we could develop small hydropower, wind (of all sorts) and solar to produce clean electricity. The power could then be used to charge third generation fully electric or electric/hydraulic hybrid vehicles. We could phase out fossil fuels and nuclear within 50 years worldwide, imo.

[godhatesrepublicans]

3. Does anyone know how many abandoned oil rigs there are off the US coast?

I'd think there's be a good number of them by now, I can't imagine the drilling companies take them down when the well goes dry.

The article misses the point though, you don't need to run undersea electric cables. Use the electricity to produce hydrogen, and ship it to shore the same as they do oil. It'd take a little retrofitting of the tankers, but it'd be cheaper.

Wish I had $100 million to invest, I may have just come up with a winning idea...

[petgoat]

7. Now you're talking! I wonder, why not use wave-powered

generators though. They could be simpler, more rugged, easier to rig for
storm defense, bird-safe. No problems with expensive rotor blades going
out of balance and self-destructing. Of course in either system the anchor
lines will be a major expense.

As to your hundred million, well, models are cheap.

[XemaSab]

4. Birds migrate offshore too

Not just seabirds, like albatrosses and shearwaters, but land birds like warblers and thrushes.

I'm not into any energy source that creates big environmental problems while trying to solve others. :shrug:

[skids]

5. Show evidence...

...that it creates a "big environmental problem" without relying on data from the old windfarm at altamont.

Sure, wind farms should be sited out of migratory pathways.

But, birds out in the sea get mercury poisoning, too.

Which do you think will kill more?

[XemaSab]

9. Migratory pathways at sea are very poorly documented

On land, birds will use clear topograpic features to migrate, but at sea most of them migrate in a broad front.

I'm not arguing in favor of mercury poisoning, so don't try to make it like I am.

I think large-scale wind power is a bad idea. I think solar, nuclear, small scale wind, and appropriately sited tidal energy are better choices.

[skids]

10. Still waiting on that evidence. n/t

[XemaSab]

11. Well why don't you try to educate me?

If you know better, I'd like to hear about it. I'm going to be working on a big wind project, so I'd like to know.

[skids]

13. The upshot...

...is that unless you really are a total screwup and don't bother to do any migratory pathway research at all, or do something dumb like for example putting them right in the middle of a rare bird sanctuary, the modern windmills -- the bigger the better -- do not kill many birds at all. More birds probably die hitting the oil rigs than would hitting the turbines. Bats are another (though still not severe) matter, but only during seasonal migrations when the swarm and turn off their sonar, and the migration pathways are known pretty well for the rare kinds.

Or in other words, the only way you can manage to kill enough birds to create an "environmental problem" is if you are completely and totally oblivious to the issue, and the wind power industry clearly is not, after what happenned at Altamont.

http://www.currykerlinger.com/windpower.htm

I do agree that wave power has less impact, just it is still mostly wedged in the end of the development pipeline. I think it very likely that wave will end up being more popular than wind, in a couple of decades when the companies promoting it have finally scaled, but not because of impact on bird populations -- even the paultry number of casualties now caused can be addressed through new turbine designs -- but simply because wave power is more predictable and reliable.

[w4rma]

6. The blades on modern windmills move very very slow. Birds are in no

danger.

[XemaSab]

12. According to what I'm reading

the tips of the blades move at up to 150 mph.

That doesn't sound slow to me.

[skids]

14. Not really all that fast to a bird.

FWIW.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Raptor_Hunting.html

The main thing about the blades is that they are big and easy to see/hear. Birds die just as much from hitting the stationary tower as they do the blades.

[XemaSab]

15. Depends on the bird

Peregrine falcons are the fastest birds around.

Most other birds are WAY slower.

[BrightKnight]

8. offshore windmills last longer

Offshore windmills tend to last longer because the wind direction and intensity is more consistent. An extra 5 years of productivity can may a big difference in the financial calculations.