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

More offshore wind construction pictures

by Jerome a Paris Mon Jun 24th, 2013 at 10:42:18 AM EST

Last week, I did another site visit on the construction site of an offshore wind farm - this time onshore, at the "marshaling harbour" in Ostende (Belgium) for the C-Power project (which financing we helped arrange in late 2010).

Construction is almost over and these were the last 2 turbines to be installed. Go below the fold for more pictures.


This is one blade (from a 126m rotor), and the people standing underneath give you an idea of the size of these things...

This is the full rotor:

and a close up:

The rotor, as you can see, is assembled onshore and carried on a barge before being installed offshore in one go (which requires 2 cranes - a big one to carry the rotor, and a smaller one to help orient it correctly during the lift). The crane that you see in the background of some of the pictures here does the same to transport the rotor from the harbor to the barge (the rotor brought in with the blades transported separately, and assembled on the site here).

The nacelles:

and a close up...

And the view from the top...

And, as a bonus, an Alstom prototype (the first to be installed offshore, on the Belwind site, after the first one installed on the seashore in St Nazaire last year) was nearby:

As you can see, it will be transported and installed using a different methodology - in that case, the nacelle, rotor and two blades are assembled onshore (in the so-called "bunny" position), transported like this on a barge, and raised on the tower by a crane. A separate lift is then required to install the last blade). The nacelle was supposed to be installed earlier this month, but bad weather has delayed the installation of the jacket foundation by a few weeks.

The Belgian offshore wind sector will continue to be busy as construction gets going on the third project, the 216 MW Northwind project (which we also helped finance last year), which will use Vestas V112 turbines. I'll be sure to post pictures if there is a site visit...

(Note - there's plenty of nice pictures on C-Power's own website)

Display:
it will be transported and installed

Hm, ''Une éolienne''... I cannot help thinking of these beauties as female... especially on the high seas

by mustakissa on Mon Jun 24th, 2013 at 12:24:37 PM EST
Is there a handy source comparing the masses of these behemoths, or do you have some of this data? (Nacelle with or without rotor mounted or both.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 24th, 2013 at 03:15:31 PM EST
I'm pretty sure the info is public, but may be buried deep on various websites.

The Repower nacelle is just over 300 tons, with the blades weighing (from memory, 90 tons each)

Found this to show the size of these things (for the new Siemens turbines with 75m blades)



Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 04:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just found this database, which has some mass numbers (by far not all). For the REpower 6M, all of them (nacelle 325 t, rotor 135 t single blade 23 t). For the current 5 MW or greater turbines, where data was available, I calculated power/head mass ratios of 11-17 kW/t.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Was going to post this, glad you found it. Most of the WTs are actually onshore turbines, and will never see the sea. But the offshore WTs are fully represented, AFAIK.

Notice how many turbines from Chinese OEMs grace the list.

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

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, and not just Chinese: I see lots of venture capital there... I predict bankruptcy for most of them.

Speaking of on-shore: can you find me the mass data for the Enercon E-126? (It's not on the page on the turbine on the company homepage.)

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

by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enercon E-112 has at THM of over 500 t, don't know if the 126 uses the same generator.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 11:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tried to look but found contradictory numbers: one source says the total is 650 t, but another claims that the nacelle is 365 t (140 t house + 102 t stator + 123 t rotor), and yet another (an in-house one to boot) that the rotor (as lifted in a single lift) is a sheer unbelievable 340 t (bringing the sum to 705 t). Either way, the impression that it is the top-heaviest holds. At a rated power of 7.58 MW, the lower THM above means 11.7 kW/t.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 02:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the figure used in the most basic calculations regarding power/cost is the top head mass (THM), comprising everything above the last tower section, usually nacelle and rotor star.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:09:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that I've shared this database before.  It's pretty thorough, although the coverage of proposed and in construction wind farms seems a little sparse.  For example, EON has been planning two major wind farms in the part of Indiana that I live in (I've been taking care of my parents) and they are missing from this.  It looks as though the one closest to me is DOA because of a mysteriously well organized anti-wind group in the area. The final straw was when one of the county commissioners, who has a home in the area of the proposed wind farm bought into the rhetoric that wind farms cause property devaluation, and maybe even disease.

Maybe this is a little OT, but has there been any effort to organize wind education groups that step in to educate the public when wind farms are proposed.  
It certainly seems that the opposition is well organized. (And, I suspect funded covertly by fossil fuel interests) At least in North America, the political obstacles seem to be an issue with expanding the penetration of wind power into the energy mix. I've been thinking that this might actually be something that someone could form a non-profit or consultancy around.....

 

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 07:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that I've shared this database before.

They hid the turbine database behind a paywall...

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

by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 04:45:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Max take-off weight for an A380 is 560 tonnes. Standard offshore machines are heavier, but direct drive and hybrid can be lighter.

The Areva M5000-135 (rotor dia. 135m) THM is only 375t.

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

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as the picture implies, can the A380 fly through the swept zone without getting hit by a blade? At what airspeed, at what windspeed? Gentlemen, start your slide rules.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A new 007 (or Snowden?) movie, "Wind farms forever"!
by das monde on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Gone with the Wind"?
by mustakissa on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 02:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"To Kill A (Mocking) Bird"

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 04:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Turbine max speed is 11rpm, that's a speed of 48.4 m/s at a radius of 42 m (where the A380's center of gravity should pass). At the same radius, the free space between two blades should be about 85-86 m. Subtracting the A380's fuselage height of 8.41 m, I get a possible passage time of 1.6 seconds. With the A380's length of 73.73 m, you'd need a speed of at least 165 km/h to pass. Even minimum takeoff speed (about 250 km/h) is above, so the A380 wins :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, as long as the Rolex used to time the entry point is working properly.  ;-)


"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Timing is everything.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reminds me of the question I asked of an ex-Air Force, United Airlines training pilot: "Can you barrel roll a 707?"

Answer: "Uh, I would rather not say."

by asdf on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 12:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I once wrote a short story in which a passenger took the commands of a Boeing 777, after hijackers killed both pilots. He had extensive experience with MS Flight Simulator, you see, so he knew exactly how hard you could push it without tearing the wings off. He flew it down into the Grand Canyon, then under the Golden Gate bridge, then headed for a disused airstrip in Kamchatka.

But he had never bothered learning to land the thing.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 12:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A barrel roll is supposedly  a stress free manouevre, so it should be okay.

Concorde could barrel roll.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 04:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly. But the only way to find out is to try it.

My experiences with perhaps a dozen ex-military pilots who went into the commercial airline business makes me think that passenger jets were routinely rolled. Back in the days before every single thing that you do is recorded. Probably not any more.

http://clickamericana.com/eras/1950s/passenger-jet-does-a-double-barrel-roll-1955

by asdf on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 11:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently the Siemens direct-drives are even lighter: the page for the SWT-6.0-120 says THM is "under 350 tonnes". (With that, it presumably beats the Vestas V164-8.0 MW in power/THM.) Do you have a similar number for the SWT-6.0-154?

Also, looking at the rotor diameters, any chance the Alstom Haliade 150-6MW and the Siemens SWT-6.0-154 will be up-rated?

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

by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't have the info on hand (incl. E-126); we'll see what and when i can pick anything up.

Uprating exercises have been done, but unlikely anything beyond the preliminaries would occur until more operational data is collected and analyzed.

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

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This and the previous post are not yet on the wind power list
by mustakissa on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 08:29:23 AM EST
This one now added, but the previous photo-diary was already in, unless you have another one in mind?

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 01:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I may have been mistaken
by mustakissa on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 01:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'e added gmoke's diary as well.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 05:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

National Grid report challenges wind energy critics

Squirreled away beneath a recent Telegraph report on the subtleties of badger-culling in the UK was this intriguing morsel of wind energy news, which would seem to challenge the idea that intermittent energy sources such as wind play havoc with grid management. For the 23,700 gigawatt-hours of electrical energy generated by wind in the UK between April 2011 and September 2012, only 22 GWh of electrical energy from fossil fuels "was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn't blow," it reports. Gizmag contacted the UK National Grid to find out the details.

(...)

In other words, for every 1,000 GWh of wind energy generated in that 18-month period, less than 1 GWh was required to meet shortfalls due to the wind not blowing as expected. "As expected" may be the crucial words missing from the Telegraph's summary. What about the energy required when the wind isn't blowing, when you know it isn't going to blow, you may well ask? But, similar to the classic falling tree scenario, is a GWh of energy truly "lost" if you weren't expecting to generate it in the first place? At the very least, the National Grid's figures would seem to challenge the notion that wind energy throws the grid into significant disarray.

(...)

Over the 18-month period, the 23,707 GWh of wind energy generated resulted in an estimated reduction in CO2 emissions of 10.9 million tonnes. Meanwhile the "intermittency impact" of the wind not blowing as expected was an additional 8,800 tonnes of CO2. "The report concludes that this effect causes only a small effect on the carbon intensity of thermal plant generation which is less than 1 percent of the benefit of carbon reductions from wind farms," it says, somewhat conservatively. The National Grid's own figures suggest that the effect on carbon emissions of wind intermittency is actually less than a tenth of a percent of the overall benefit of wind power.

Go check the tables at the link.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 05:23:21 PM EST
Wind critic modus operandi:

  1. - Wind is intermittent, putting a strain on the balancing capacity of peaker plants!
    - But wind is predictable, most of the variability can be balanced on a scheduled basis. =>
  2. - Wind needs a matching reserve capacity of mid-merit fossil fuel plants which spew CO2!
    - But so does nuclear, and wind+solar require less and the balancing plants will have low capacity factors and thus won't spew much CO2. =>
  3. - Idle (reserve) plants are a waste and make the system more expensive!
    - But it is the nature of mid-merit and peaker plants to have low utilisation, because their costs are dominated by fuel. =>
  4. - Low utilisation and low wholesale prices due to renewables eat at the profits of balancing plant operators and make them close shop!
    - But maybe that means those plants aren't needed, after all? And if the situation becomes critical, you can always look beyond market solutions, from forcing operators to close the dirtiest baseload plants (resulting in higher utilisation of mid-merit plants and higher wholesale prices) through bonuses for reserve plant operation to tax-financed public operation of reserve capacity. =>
  5. - The grid can't take large back-and-forth flows due to intermittency!
    - But renewables with improved technology are spreading in regions where they have been rare previously, new grid capacity is being added even if slowly, and the operation of the existing grid is being made more efficient. =>
  6. ?


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 04:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
4 - Low utilisation and low wholesale prices due to renewables eat at the profits of balancing plant operators and make them close shop!

Only in times of high wind. Allow the plants to charge more when renewables are low... smart grid. The market does work if you let it

  1. Wind turbine syndrome

  2. Fuck you greenies
by mustakissa on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 05:55:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
6. Luckily, there is an army of electrical engineers scrambling around in the background to keep the grid on the air as all the various sources and loads change. Not like the good old days, where all you had to do was keep the synchronous clock more or less on time.

If gold hand lines up with black hand, yer power plant is good.

http://www.my-time-machines.net/warren_master_clock.htm

by asdf on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 01:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here two studies from the Finnish State Technical Research Centre (VTT):

Wind power forecasting accuracy and uncertainty in Finland

Wind and load variability in the Nordic countries

(h/t Tuomas Helin)

Basically similar conclusions.

by mustakissa on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 06:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The second study is of further interest due to the analysis of correlation in load variability between the Nordic countries, based on 2009-2011 data. They find 0.7 correlation between Denmark and Sweden but weak correlation in other pairings. Looking at it another way, for single countries, there are periods when actual power from all wind turbines is 2-5% of the total power (mostly in the summer), but for the entire region, the minimum is 14%. As for over-supply: with their scenario for wind power expansion in the region to an annual penetration of 30%, while production in Denmark could peak at 160% of domestic consumption, for the entire region, it's 110%.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 06:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
for the entire region, the minimum is 14%

I misread: 14% is the minimum during the ten highest daily peak loads. There were sub-5% events for the entire region, though their number and length would reduce significantly with increased capacity in Finland. Also, this analysis excludes Norway.

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

by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 06:49:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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