If what you say is true, offshore windfarms will not be able to bid for generation contracts, without needing subsidies, at prices which are profitable but which undercut established suppliers.
But they can, and do.
Gas boilers
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
If what you say is true, offshore windfarms will not be able to bid for generation contracts, without needing subsidies, at prices which are profitable but which undercut established suppliers.
But they can, and do.
Sponsored Links
That's what HVDC is for. It's more pricey than AC but it does long distance really well and it's all part of the cost of the farm.
I don't see why power that comes ashore from a wind turbine is less useful than power from a coastal Nuclear plant safely tucked away in the back of beyond.
Grid losses are about 7.7%. Hardly the end of the world. How much do you think offshore wind is losing?
And even if the wind farm lost a quarter of the power, that just means 1.3x more turbines to compensate. So it costs more, but still nothing like nuclear prices.
How could running a ship possibly be more expensive than running a landrover or a 7.5 tonner?
How could running a ship possibly be more expensive than running a landrover or a 7.5 tonner?
Obviously you have to look at the total cost, not one fragment of it.
here's an example of how cheap it can be. This article is over three years old, and the price keeps coming down. Bids now require no subsidy.
https://www.ft.com/content/2ce7ac15-ee6e-3f9a-b427-6d34dac99ba2
September 11 2017
"The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidising offshore windfarms has plummeted by more than 50 per cent and is now well below the price the government has guaranteed to the developers of the contentious Hinkley Point nuclear power plant in Somerset.
Three offshore wind projects have won subsidy contracts from the government in the latest auction for “less established technologies”, which was also open to projects such as tidal schemes but excluded solar and onshore wind.
The price of electricity guaranteed to offshore wind developers in this latest auction has dropped to as low as £57.50 per megawatt hour – a significant fall from the average £117.14/MWh awarded to offshore schemes in the last comparable subsidy round in 2015.
The latest “strike price”, which is guaranteed for 15 years and rises with inflation, is also well below the £92.50/MWh controversially promised by the government to the French and Chinese developers of the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset. The Hinkley price, which also rises with inflation and is therefore already worth closer to 100/MWh, has been secured for the first 35 years of the plant’s operation."
Sponsored Links
One year ago... prices still going down, and no subsidy.
"The UK is to get its first subsidy-free offshore windfarms after the government awarded contracts today for nearly 6 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, at prices below those it expects on the open market.
The prices are so low that the windfarms could generate electricity more cheaply than existing gas-fired power stations as early as 2023, Carbon Brief analysis suggests. Even last year, renewables had not been expected to reach this tipping point until around 2030.
The 12 schemes awarded contracts today include six offshore windfarms, totalling 5.5GW, and 0.3GW of onshore windfarms on remote Scottish islands. Together, they are expected to produce some 29 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity each year, equal to 9% of the UK’s total output in 2018 and sufficient to power a quarter of the country’s 26m homes.
The record-low prices will see projects due to start operating in 2023/24 coming in at £39.65/MWh (in 2012 prices, £44/MWh adjusted for inflation) and those for 2024/25 at £41.61/MWh. These are some £8-9/MWh below the government’s “reference price”, the level it expects to see for electricity on the open market in each year.
If the market follows the government’s reference price expectations, then the new renewable schemes will pay more than £600m towards consumer bills by 2027, instead of receiving a subsidy."
"The UK is to get its first subsidy-free offshore windfarms after the government awarded contracts today for nearly 6 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, at prices below those it expects on the open market.
The prices are so low that the windfarms could generate electricity more cheaply than existing gas-fired power stations as early as 2023, Carbon Brief analysis suggests. Even last year, renewables had not been expected to reach this tipping point until around 2030.
The 12 schemes awarded contracts today include six offshore windfarms, totalling 5.5GW, and 0.3GW of onshore windfarms on remote Scottish islands. Together, they are expected to produce some 29 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity each year, equal to 9% of the UK’s total output in 2018 and sufficient to power a quarter of the country’s 26m homes.
The record-low prices will see projects due to start operating in 2023/24 coming in at £39.65/MWh (in 2012 prices, £44/MWh adjusted for inflation) and those for 2024/25 at £41.61/MWh. These are some £8-9/MWh below the government’s “reference price”, the level it expects to see for electricity on the open market in each year.
If the market follows the government’s reference price expectations, then the new renewable schemes will pay more than £600m towards consumer bills by 2027, instead of receiving a subsidy."
All great but the switch to LED bulbs has still made the UK greener than any other changes.
Wind farms. It's interesting to see how much the largest one in Scotland can supply in terms of population size / city where people are currently using what they usually use that consumes energy of one sort or another. There is very obviously a need to do some sums on this aspect - what it would need to replace all with electricity. Then look at doing something about heat loss from housing stock for instance - how much can it be improved. The reason gas has been used is how many kw it can get into a house.
The other factor is that if the UK is 100% successful on it's own it would make next to no difference to the problem. Resistance comes from countries where it would.
Loads of jobs - that's a fascinating one. People would need to earn enough to pay for what is required. Payback time on changes always seem to be long. Polystyrene insulation is an interesting example. Costs peanuts so why is it so expensive when used for this. Cost is always passed onto the public and generally things in this area involve extra cost.
Nuclear crops up as wind is not consistent and demand isn't either. Loads of Dinorwigs or store it in batteries?
All probably done by variations of PFI. That has it's interesting aspects even variations such as my electricity meters etc being owned by a French leasing company. LOL Corbyn really does have a point to make in that area.
Thanks to pundits no one will ever give any information concerning what it all means only aspects bent to suite their own beliefs. That leads to people having misconceptions in all sorts of areas.
Wind farms. It's interesting to see how much the largest one in Scotland can supply in terms of population size / city where people are currently using what they usually use that consumes energy of one sort or another. There is very obviously a need to do some sums on this aspect - what it would need to replace all with electricity. Then look at doing something about heat loss from housing stock for instance - how much can it be improved. The reason gas has been used is how many kw it can get into a house.
The other factor is that if the UK is 100% successful on it's own it would make next to no difference to the problem. Resistance comes from countries where it would.
Loads of jobs - that's a fascinating one. People would need to earn enough to pay for what is required. Payback time on changes always seem to be long. Polystyrene insulation is an interesting example. Costs peanuts so why is it so expensive when used for this. Cost is always passed onto the public and generally things in this area involve extra cost.
Nuclear crops up as wind is not consistent and demand isn't either. Loads of Dinorwigs or store it in batteries?
All probably done by variations of PFI. That has it's interesting aspects even variations such as my electricity meters etc being owned by a French leasing company. LOL Corbyn really does have a point to make in that area.
Thanks to pundits no one will ever give any information concerning what it all means only aspects bent to suite their own beliefs. That leads to people having misconceptions in all sorts of areas.
They tend to generate power at the wrong times of day. They really need to be paired with a decent sized battery to make sense imo. But that'd make them even more expensive. Give it another few years and the economics might start to make sense, just in time for them to be outlawed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-once-doomed-for-landfill-can-now-be-recycled
I love it when a plan comes together
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 105
- Country
Not exactly "a plan come together" though is it? GE have 10% of the World wind turbine market and they are only going to recycle blades from their own Onshore turbines in the US. Given that means they only have a possible target of less than around 5% of the blades that will require recycling, it is not really making much of a dent in the vast amount that will go to landfill. Current technology means that it is either prohibitive in terms of energy used/toxic material created or simply cost to recycle most blades. I am comforted in the knowledge that companies are mindful of this however.
Given all that though I actually do care about climate change, I just think we need to look at the bigger picture and we should absolutely not put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to renewable's. This was more than highlighted recently when the big Drax coal fired power stations had to go back into full production following a period of foggy weather in the UK. Fog generally means no wind/no sun and little electricity produced using current renewable technology.
My thoughts then on the immediate reduction of greenhouse gas is to target methane and to explore ways of capturing millions of tons of methane that vents off, naturally, out of the sea every year. If we could put this to good use and burn it in boilers and I.C engines we will be reducing the emission of a gas that has the global warming potential of around 80 times that of carbon dioxide within 20 years.
I'd like to see enterprise and technology be allowed to given as much as a free reign as possible and not scuppered by politicians who, lets face it have mucked up previously on what is good/bad for emissions (diesel was seen as a wonder fuel for reducing emissions 20 odd years ago).
I think such things as vehicle platooning using some sort of agreed international standard for autonomous driving of vehicles is the sort of thing politicians should be working on, instead of banning things with little regard to how much that would impact both the end user and innovation as a whole.
Last edited:
No one is decommissioning offshore turbines yet. It'd be a very slow business.
I wasn't aware that the offshore ones are materially different either. Any further info on that?
That one company can and is doing it implies that everyone else can too.
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 105
- Country
I can post links to sites that go into mathematical modeling etc when it comes to blade design but they don't make good reading at all. The most obvious design difference is the size, offshore means they can get away with using much larger turbines than would generally be suitable/acceptable onshore in both logistical and noise nuisance terms. As well as size, offshore blades need to be stronger/more resistant to corrosion and more resistant from damage from lightening strikes and as such have differing proportions of metals/resins and composites in their construction.
I don't doubt manufacturers are mindful that the blades currently in use will be destined for landfill and it does require a large company such as GE to stir up their whits to investigate ways that might be environmentally responsible to recycle them. Currently the size and strength of the blades and the heat and equipment required to cut up and pyrolise them is prohibitive, presumably because of cost.
I'll post the most interesting links, the Wiki one and another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design
https://blog.arcadia.com/common-sizes-wind-turbines/
Except where it is economical, as it clearly is for at least onshore blades. A week ago you'd have said that it wasn't. Right now you're still arguing that it's not economic because they haven't signed a contract to dispose of offshore blades
The GE offshore fleet first started to be installed in 2016. They're aiming at a 20 year + lifespan. Arranging a contract to recycle the blades now would be amazing, and pointless.
Sponsored Links
