Offshore wind power without subsidy (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

CWatters

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,453
2,264
1,415
9
Thanks for the thread! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post? The more details the better.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,489
3,440
News: The cost of offshore wind plant has been falling rapidly and now some projects in Holland are viable without subsidy...

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/03/13/dutch-powerhouses-reveal-zero-subsidy-offshore-wind-play/
That's interesting. Unfortunately, you need really large scale wind turbines for the technology to be worth while. No use for private projects, I think.
The UK government has a particularly awkward policy for home generated Energy. They started with a system of Feed-In Tariff which involved all the other consumers paying for those who had enough money and suitable homes to instal PV systems. The FIT is too low to make it attractive and the firms that supply the systems are ripping customers off (afaics).
It all started off as a vanity project for Tony Blair, way back. "The UK can do it better than anyone else".
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,489
3,440
The thread is about offshore wind. Not much chance to do that privately in any country.
You are right, of course.
 
184
83
Just curious on terminology, when they say "total installed capacity of about 760MW" is this the peak generating capacity or the expected output including predicted wind occurrence?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
17,945
4,445
Just curious on terminology, when they say "total installed capacity of about 760MW" is this the peak generating capacity or the expected output including predicted wind occurrence?
Peak, pretty much always.
 

cjl

1,607
244
So that cost per actual delivered MW/hr is a about 2-6x higher then?
They didn't actually quote a cost per MWh in the article, but usually they'd bid based on actual delivered energy, not peak theoretical output. Based on the wind conditions at the site, the characteristics of the turbines involved, etc, you can figure out an expected annual energy production (AEP), and then the bids will be based around the expected AEP from the farm. The 760MW "total installed capacity" is peak output though. For a modern offshore 10MW turbine running at a decent site, numbers in the neighborhood of 40GWh/yr are pretty reasonable, so for a 760MW farm (76 of those turbines), you'd be looking at 3TWh/yr of production, give or take a bit depending on which turbine they select and the site conditions.

Also, for offshore, capacity factors are typically 30-60%, so a factor of 2 is much closer to reality than a factor of 6.
 
Last edited:

CWatters

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,453
2,264
That's interesting. Unfortunately, you need really large scale wind turbines for the technology to be worth while. No use for private projects, I think.
The UK government has a particularly awkward policy for home generated Energy. They started with a system of Feed-In Tariff which involved all the other consumers paying for those who had enough money and suitable homes to instal PV systems. The FIT is too low to make it attractive and the firms that supply the systems are ripping customers off (afaics).
It all started off as a vanity project for Tony Blair, way back. "The UK can do it better than anyone else".
A lot of housing associations put solar panels on the roots of the houses they owned because it lowered fuel bills for their low wage tenents and provided an income for the association. That's pretty much stopped now the FIT has reduced/ended.
 

CWatters

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,453
2,264
So that cost per actual delivered MW/hr is a about 2-6x higher then?
It doesn't really matter what the cost per MW/hr is. Without a subsidy they will have to sell electricity at market rates along side fossil fuel plants. If they can't do that they go bust. Presumably they believe they can or they wouldn't build the wind farm.

PS: It might be necessary to subsidize new gas power stations if wind prices keep falling.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,489
3,440
Presumably they believe they can
. . . or were sold the idea by a clever, optimistic and enthusiastic salesperson.
The Green Energy market will always be 'marginal' for consumers because the companies need only be a bit competitive to sell the products. This is an example of where governments could affect the situation but it has to be with legislation; fiscal pressure only has limited effect.
 

cjl

1,607
244
What do you mean by that sophie? Wind power is very competitive right now, with pretty extensive price pressure for OEMs and a large number of new designs that have recently hit the market. Also, consumers really don't have much of an impact on it, unless you're counting utilities and large scale energy development companies as the "consumers" here - small scale wind is not even remotely competitive, and much of the price improvement of late has come from scaling up to ridiculously large machines. Even a small project is going to be tens of millions of dollars, minimum.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,489
3,440
What do you mean by that sophie?
Bit more of a general rant, I suppose. As a consumer, I find that prices rise faster than they fall.
I realise wind has to be big scale to be worth while.
There is still the problem of Energy Storage which will always be needed with wind sources - even off shore.
The size of the latest systems is eye watering though. Quite scary, even.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top