Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Offshore wind news becoming repetitive and boring

by Jerome a Paris Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 07:47:52 AM EST


THANET'S LAST TURBINE INSTALLED: WORLD'S LARGEST OFFSHORE WIND FARM ALMOST READY

The final turbine at the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm in the United Kingdom has been put in its place. When construction is complete at the end of the summer, Thanet will be the world's largest operating offshore wind farm.

Located 12 kilometers off the Foreness Point, the most eastern point of Kent, England, Thanet is composed 100 3-megawatt wind turbines.  When operating at full capacity, the offshore wind farm will be able to provide 240,000 English households with power.

This came on the heels of this:


Denmark Inaugurates World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm - 209 MW Horns Rev 2 (17 September 2009)

The world has a new largest offshore wind farm: The 209 MW Horns Rev 2 project, located 30 kilometers off the west coast of Jutland in the North Sea, was inaugurated today by Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik. Constructed by DONG Energy, the project consists of 91 Siemens turbines and is expected to produce about 800 GWh of electricity per year -- enough for 200,000 households.

That project replaced the Nysted wind farm as the largest offshore project; Nysted was built in 2003 as one of two demonstrator projects promoted by the Danish government (the other being Horns Rev 1), and, at 165MW, kept that title for a long time.

Part of the Wind power series

front-paged with picture edit by afew


But between the two events, two other large wind farms were completed - Gunfleet Sands at 172 MW (in June), and Robin Rigg at 180 MW (in April), underlining how the industry is now suddenly moving from the prototype/R&D phase to large scale industrialization.

This year will see the first commercial German offshore wind farm (Baltic I), shortly after the inauguration of the test Alpha Ventus project, and in that country like in the UK, the next few years are going to see massive build up, with records likely to be shattered on a regular basis.

Beyond Thanet and its 300MW, the next record holder is likely to be Greater Gabbard, at 504 MW, expected to be completed next year, and then the 630 MW London Array the following year. Germany has allotted licenses mainly for 400 MW projects, so no individual records to be found there, but the cumulative numbers are going to start looking quite impressive rather quickly. It took 18 years for the first GW to be built offshore, 18 months for the second one, and this year alone will see that much being built, with multiples of that to follow in the coming years.

But all of this will show that it is much easier to go from a 1% market share to 10% one than from 0.1% to 1%, and it will disprove all those who say that wind will never have the scale required to be a meaningful part of our energy future. It's happening now, on a daily basis.

Display:
to grab the headlines. And, that won't capture the news cycle for long. BP's spill is off the front page of the U.S. national newspapers and their websites. The well has been gushing for 72 days now in the Gulf and it seems to have become status quo here in the States — the way things have to be.
by Magnifico on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 02:27:44 AM EST
The next attack on the world's seas, floating nukes.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 05:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
are needed since now the wind energy researchers have come with floating wind. The nuclear lobby cannot allow for wind to gain market, because then people will catch on wind works and decide nukes aren't worth it.

IEEE Spectrum: Floating Wind Turbines Could Expand Offshore Possibilities

To take advantage of the wind blowing over deeper water, there is movement now to use floating wind turbines as a way of avoiding the need to anchor into a deep sea bed. According to one company, the biggest turbines currently available could feasibly work on such floating rigs.

Marine Innovation & Technology's WindFloat can theoretically support giant 5-MW turbines. The floating rig, made up essentially of three platforms with the turbine tower extending from one of them, is designed to withstand the rigors of a "100-year storm," according to a paper published in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy earlier this month (by company employees). And according to Principle Power, who has purchased the technology for WindFloat, several projects are in the works that could see turbines in the water by 2011 or 2012...

Other companies, though, are already steps ahead: Norwegian oil and gas giant Statoil recently completed construction of its first floating turbine several miles off the coast of Norway. Dubbed the Hywind, the company will spend the next two years testing the turbine before moving forward with further installations.

According to UPI, the WindFloat prototype is being "built in collaboration with electricity company Energia de Portugal should be in the water by the end of 2012". Principle Power has a floating wind project planned for off the Oregon coast too, but it's in the early stages.

by Magnifico on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I propose floating coal power stations!  Coolant is readily available, and you can use the sea water to scrub the air, dissolving the CO2 into the water, which is a vital nutrient!
by njh on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 06:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is huge windspill wastage in Ireland at the moment, with only 0.0000001% of wind being captured for productive use with the rest left to run wild damaging crops, boats and poorly maintained buildings etc. with no realistic attempt to manage it better.  This is like sowing a crop and harvesting only a tiny fraction of it except you don't even have to sow it. I suppose its true people don't appreciate what they get for free.

Only the worst storms are deemed newsworthy and no one blames the wind industry for its pitiful failure to manage and control this abundant resource.  It seems the wind industry has the media bought and paid for - a bit like BP - and soon we'll have our equivalent of US Republican leaders apologising to the wind industry for others blaming it for not making the wind safe.

It's time we got the wind industry off our backs and force them to make our wind resources safe by capturing at least 50% of ground level wind and prevent it doing any damage in the future.  Of course there will always be some gushers/hurricanes that are difficult to control but that does not excuse the wind industry for its extraordinary wastage and corporate negligence in ensuring we have safe wind for all.

Bragging about record windfarm development is only so much wind industry PR spin trying to distract us from the woeful reality that the wind industry has wasted more energy than the oil industry ever did.  Hell only the solar panel industry comes even close in its profligate wastage of our natural resources.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 08:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ROFLMAO

i'd personally like to apologise for only harvesting 2.3 kw from my roof.

and not wearing white clothes for albedo.

also.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 09:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's some really new wind capture technology I've just come across.....

Still working on how to fund it with carbon credits though......

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 09:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could you not unitise the windflow and charge rental on the wind (foot)print?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 09:35:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One of them is to start a shipping company that uses entirely sailing ships. No idea how to start a business or make it work, but I think there may be a market for "eco-shipping", post-peak oil shipping.

The new clippers probably need to work easily with shipping containers. So 19th century clippers won't likely work. Plus, I've no clue how to start a business,so lots of hurdles.

by Magnifico on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
The well has been gushing for 72 days now in the Gulf and it seems to have become status quo here in the States -- the way things have to be.

fresh air, clean water, non-poisonous agriculture, the just don't pay (the few) as well...

"i asked my baby for a drink of water, she gave me a glass of gasoline." some old blues guy.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 09:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, very boring and repetitive.

(Did an edit to align the pic better).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 03:55:00 AM EST
yeah, dull dull dull...

need more sexy babes posing next to the new rotor designs!

;)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 05:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US, Hoover Dam's output is 2080 MW, compared to 300 MW by the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm. That means it would take a wind farm seven times larger than Thanet to achieve the output of Hoover Dam.

I'm wondering why we are not hearing about projects such as Thanet in the US. Would it be cost effective to build such a large wind farm, and if so, what is holding up the US or even private investors?

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 08:54:21 AM EST
given the respective capacity factors (4,000 full load hours for offshore wind, and around 2,000 for the Hoover Dam, you'd need only 3 or 4 such wind farms to replace the Hoover Dam's net output (I was going to say you needed more, but the capacity factor of hydro can be quite low, depending on location and usage).

You have onshore wind farms which are larger than that in the US, so if you're not hearing about it, it means you're not paying attention! Offshore wind is not yet happening in the US, because it is more expensive than onshore, making it difficult for politicians to put in place the necessary regulatory framework, and NIMBY seems even worse than onshore (cf Cape Wind).

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 09:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No doubt the topic is beyond me.

Read these interesting stats:

"California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco.

More than 13,000 of California's wind turbines, or 95 percent of all of California's wind generating capacity and output, are located in three primary regions."

Does make you wonder. In order to generate 10% of California's electricity needs, about 100,000 wind turbines would be needed.

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 10:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually most of the turbines in Cali a very old and very small, many less than 750 kW, and thousands less than 150kW. today's modern turbines are 2-3 MW.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 10:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of California's wind turbines are 30-years old and very small. Modern turbines are 50 times more powerful than the majority of those installed today.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:06:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I add to what Jérôme and Crazy Horse said that California does not have much wind resource, it's only that the industry started there. The Central Plains and Texas are much better. Overall, the last estimate I saw for the entire USA (49 continuous states) was a wind potential that is about an order of magnitude greater than current consumption.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From AWEA's Windpower Outlook 2010 (pdf!):

U.S. winds can supply 9 times electricity demand
Estimates of the U.S. wind resource have consistently found it to be abundant. That conclusion was underlined in early 2010 when the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released a new assessment finding that U.S. winds could generate 37 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, or nearly nine times the nation's total electricity use (see map). NREL's findings revealed sharp increases in several Midwestern states (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri in particular), owing to the wind speeds at higher elevations in those states that can be tapped with taller turbines.

Indeed if you check this document, which indicates a wind potential twice the current US consumption, you'll see it is based on 1991 data for wind speeds at 50 m hub height. But typical hub heights today are more like twice of that, and turbines can be supplied with blades and gear ratios optimised for lower wind speeds.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 06:39:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So what could be holding back the US government from initiating a massive program to put the entire nation on a wind energy footing?

The oil lobby?

by shergald on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 07:58:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that initiating a massive program to put the entire nation on a wind energy footing would be "socialism".

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 08:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As Migeru said. At last year's rate of expansion, it would take something like 75 years for wind to give half of consumption.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
At last year's rate of expansion, it would take something like 75 years for wind to give half of consumption
How do you figure that?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Total US consumption is was 4,119 TWh in 2008. (Wind was 55.4 TWh.) Last year 10 GW were added, if we can assume an average capacity factor of 30% (this being the US), they should be good for 26.3 TWh, or an annual increase of market share by around 0.66 percentage points. 48.7/0.66 = 73.8.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:52:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The relevant figure is 26.3TWh/55.4TWh = 47% increase each year (or, x1.5 per year). The model of growth should be logistic and not linear (see Marchetti's curves by Luis de Sousa).

In other words, if in 2009 the installation was 10GW, in 2010 one should expect 15GW, in 2011 22.5GW, and so on, and the rate should slow down only when penetration is a substantial fraction of the total...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can expect logistic growth if market conditions are stable. But the development of the US market is anything but regular, more like stop-and-go. This year it should be another massive drop.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's also an argument against your extrapolation.

I guess you can always do a moving average.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 12:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My 'extrapolation' was merely intended to give a picture of what last year's growth rate means relative to total consumption, i.e. that it is not insignificant but even greater growth would be desirable.

Regarding real long-term trends, I would agree that a logistic curve fits both emergence/maturing and phaseout best, but Marchetti curves seem too simplicistic. In Luís's diary, the oil shocks are named as explanation for deviation; on one hand, methinks a lot more reasons can throw development off the Marchetti track (rule changes being one, see wind power in Denmark), on the other hand, I rather doubt that all significant energy modes will peak at the same market penetration level (50%).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 03:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really conductive to any advanced monotonous trend fitting:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 11:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and the coal and nuclear lobbies are more relevant to wind's expansion (oil is primarily used for transport, gas is primarily used for heating and peak power generation, neither of which is detrimentally affected by wind power).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The oil lobby is more preventing the US from pursuing a massive program to put in long haul electric rapid freight rail and local electric rail and trolleybus transit ... preventing the US from massive investment in our massive wind resource is more the coal lobby.

Huh, vested interests with massively lucrative cash flows in dead-end industries holding a nation back from moving into the future. So this is what it was like to be Hapsburg Spain.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 3rd, 2010 at 03:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, being Hapsburg Spain was spending all your blood and treasure fighting wars of religion... Oh, wait!

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 3rd, 2010 at 03:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... "hit it on the nose".

I was referring to the other side, the lucrative but ultimately unsustainable mining of the mountain of silver in Mexico and the mountain of silver in Peru ... but the analogies keep spinning on for a while.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 at 12:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be like the savings glut...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 at 12:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No offense, but US progressives keep relying on the MSM and wondering why they don't hear about things.

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/06/nrg_adds_texas_wind_farm_to_45.html

by rootless2 on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 11:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In this case, it is likely a matter of personal ignorance.

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No one expects you to be an expert on everything.  Bloging is about learning, and when you stop learning because you think you know it all - you also stop contributing.  Thanks for your contributions here.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:00:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your sentiment, Frank. In some areas I am way behind and mostly engage out of what you say, the need to learn.

by shergald on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 02:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's more of a failure of "progressive" blogs. Everyone who even scans them should know this - but it is not information that interests the US "progressives".
by rootless2 on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 12:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US, Hoover Dam's output is 2080 MW, compared to 300 MW by the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm.

What exactly is the basis for comparison here?

One comparison with some minimal meaning could be surface area.

FacilityAreaMax power.../areaAnnual
production
.../area
Hoover Dam (Lake Mead)640 km²2.08 GW3.25 MW/km²4.2 TWh6.56 GWh/km²
Thanet Offshore Wind Farm35 km²0.30 GW8.57 MW/km²1.0 TWh28.57 GWh/km²


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 12:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
None really. But I was impressed by the small amount of total energy produced by wind turbines overall in the US and Europe. Perhaps technology will improve output and make it competitive.

by shergald on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 07:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Momentary market penetration does not reflect how "competitive" it is. Change in market share does, however -- and wind's market share is increasing.

In addition, in some regions where there is both a good wind resource and a long history of wind power, like Denmark and Northern Germany, wind's share is up to 40%. It's double-digits in the entirety of both Spain and Portugal, too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 01:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  • For states of Germany, here (pages 7 and 14) you find potential shares for installed wind in net electricity consumption [based on longtime average wind speeds and 2008 consumption; due to below average winds and significant new capacity added during the year, 2009's actual numbers must have been a tenth or so below these]. While Germany's Northernmost state Schleswig-Holstein indeed sports the 40% number I mentioned, I forgot that East German states catched up, with Sachsen-Anhalt leading at 47%. For all of Germany (see in German), wind's share was 6.5% (a slight drop due to below average winds).

  • I intended to say 40% for Western Denmark, but now see that I mis-remembered and it is not so uneven. For all of Denmark, in 2009, based on data here (Excel!), wind's share in net consumption (with losses) was 19.32%. (That number shall definitely pass 20% with the off-shore farm mentioned in the diary.) The monthly peak was 28.59% in November, and the low was 12.66% in April.

  • For much bigger Spain, here you can see that wind's share was 14.39% in 2009, with a monthly peak of 22.62% and a low of 9.63% (August).

  • In Portugal, as I diaried, wind's share in electricity consumption was 15.03% in 2009.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 04:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For much bigger Spain, here you can see that wind's share was 14.39% in 2009, with a monthly peak of 22.62%

(November).

AEE also has this most interesting graph, on the evolution of the different production modes:

  • The strongest drop is shown by coal ("CARBÓN") -- in fact for the first time both wind ("ÉOLICA") and the sum of other feed-in-law supported renewables ("RESTO RÉGIMEN ESPECIAL") overtook it.
  • The strongest growth is from combined-cycle gas ("CICLO COMBINADO"), but it stopped recently
  • The most intermittent on a multi-year scale is hydropower.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 04:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the past 10 ears than any other technology in Europe and the US. But there was no wind before that, so the share of the stock is smaller.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 02:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These are the numbers up to the end of 2009:

This year, more than 1GW will be installed (Thanet 300MW, Robin Rigg 180MW, Gunfleet Sands 172MW, Belwind 165MW, Baltic 1 48MW, Ormonde 150MW and a couple more I'm forgetting). Next year, somewhere close to 2 GW will be built.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 10:09:29 AM EST
I assume it is from a presentation of yours? The title says 1991-1992 when it should say 1991-2009 or 1991- .

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 07:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, the cumulative is not the sum of the annual, especially around 2003.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By format looks like EWEA, and corrected versions pop up in EWEA's offshore factsheet or in GWEC's 2009 report (page 36).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How is the name pronounced?

Tha as in that?
Tha as in thaw?
Tha as in thank?
Tha as in Thames?
Tha as in Thai?

by njh on Thu Jul 1st, 2010 at 07:41:26 PM EST
the "th" is that of "thanks" and the "a" is the one from "that"

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 02:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Last week I worked along the Budapest-Vienna railway line, which crosses a windy plain full of wind turbines. Who can identify the types?



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 02:57:11 AM EST
One more:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 03:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1st Photo: Can't tell the dimensions, but the two wtih green-blended tower bottom tower sections are definitely Enercon, guessing E-66 or E-70. Larger turbine appears to be Vestas, but can't be certain from the photos.

2nd Photo: guessing Vestas but unclear on model (V-80?). Painting seems to be local developer or utility. Could also be REpower or Nordex. i'm stumped.

3rd Photo: ??? But always good to see turbines by railroads.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 04:31:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
3rd: They look like they have the same broad, round nacelles as the German ones in the first picture.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
btw, the Enercon's have that different shape as they have no gearbox, with the rotor directly feeding the larger low-speed generator, hence direct-drive.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the energy efficiency loss with a gearbox; why aren't all turbines direct drive?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 04:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The background ones in the 1st & 3rd photo: two each from the same farm of 5 Enercon E-70 units. One of them (the one on right in the 3rd photo) is just beside the tracks, once we stopped right there, and it was the first time I heard turbine noise separate from wind noise (from this gearless unit, only aerodynamic noise, a swoosh like a landing airplane but much more silent).

The foreground one in the 1st and the three in the 2nd photo: I think those are REpower MM82s from a farm of 12 turbines. The logo indeed belongs to developer Wien Energie.

There were Vestas and Gamesa units in the area, too, but I couldn't catch them on zoomed-in photos.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:10:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Danke, DoDo, wish i could have caught the workhorse MM82s. Actually been a while since i've seen one.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enercon E82s

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 08:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The stanchions look rather old tech, how old are they?
by njh on Sat Jul 3rd, 2010 at 08:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
About 15 years old. I'm not sure about what looks old tech, but the stachions certainly look light and thin compared to what you see on high-speed lines (or new/renewed Austrian lines with their massive concrete poles). Then again, this is a 160 km/h line, they don't have to be all that strong.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 at 04:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1st picture: 2 Enercons and one Repower 2MW. The Enercons have the new blades, so it's the 2MW, probably the E82.

2nd pic: looks like the Repowers, but it's hard to say - maybe the Nordex?


Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 08:06:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I never understood how people can consider windmills boring - sometimes they can even give you a religious feeling. :-)

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 03:44:04 AM EST
the church is either Protestant or some other variety, but the wind turbine is definitely holy, with a trinity of blades. nice shot.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 04:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Its quite a gothic wind turbine though...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The church is either Gothic or mixed Roman-Gothic, so it could have been built either before or after the Reformation. But I'm thinking after, due to the clocks and lack of extravagant bad taste in the decorations.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 05:07:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
so it could have been built either before or after the Reformation

Wasn't Romanesque before Gothic, and wasn't Gothic over around the time of Reformation (Luther having been incensed by the sale of indulgences for the renaissance St. Peter's Basilica)?

At any rate, this is apparently the church Assumption of Mary in Schönau in the Black Forest. From what I can find, the church is a 100-year-old neo-gothic building that retains some elements of an older church of 1341, including the lower parts of the tower.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 4th, 2010 at 02:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Romanesque was before Gothic, but after Gothic they started mixing the styles (with the big windows and tall spires of the Gothic construction, but with the round rather than pointed arches and the broad ships and load-bearing pillars and outer walls of the Romanesque style).

So Gothic is before the Reformation (well, late Gothic goes into the 16th century according to Wikipedia) but the mixed style is after.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 04:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

LQD: Totes awky momo

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 12
30 comments

Catalonia open thread

by fjallstrom - Sep 29
41 comments

Smudges

by Oui - Sep 23
10 comments