Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New Danish wind turbine with 15 MW capacity..

Rotor diameter 774 feet, and a wind swept area of 11 acres. That's a big machine.

https://electrek.co/2021/02/10/vestas-gm-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-turbine/


"Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas today announced the launch of its new offshore wind turbine – the V236-15.0MW. It replaces US conglomerate GE’s 14MW Haliade-X as having the distinction of being the world’s largest offshore wind turbine.

A comparison

The V236-15.0MW will have will have a rotor diameter of 774 feet (236 meters) and a wind-swept area of 470,845 square feet (43,743 square meters).

In comparison, GE’s Haliade-X has a rotor diameter of 722 feet (220 meters) and a wind-swept area of 409,168 square feet (38,013 square meters).

......

The Vestas V236-15.0MW boosts wind energy production to around 80 GWh/year, enough to power around 20,000 European households and save more than 38,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of removing 25,000 passenger cars from the road annually. "

Holy schit. Not for self-sufficient home owners, then

Ah, the end of all bird life in Denmark.

How ya gonna store it for when the wind dies down?

I don't think they plan to take that down, but it would take a big barn!

Cool. Every 56 of those equal one of the big hydro units at grand coulee.

They have 24 at coulee.

It'll take a lot of them big fans to cool the whole world off - global warming sucks - big air condishners would be better i think - take a lot of power to cool off the whole outside

So, how many would it take to power say, Kalifornica? 2000?

With the Dem plans to eliminate fossil fuels, they better start saving their pennies. On the other hand, if the real plan is as I suspect to just tax our asses off to re-distribute wealth to the third world and Al Gore, they can just buy a couple for show.

The big boys promote big wind. As such it's all a scam.

Someone will have to do the math, but the Danes are planning to build an island to support their off shore wind farms, with the goal of powering the entire country:

https://awaken.com/2021/02/denmark-...r-wind-farms-to-power-the-whole-country/

"Denmark To Build Artificial Island For Wind Farms To Power The Whole Country

AFP reports that Denmark’s parliament has just committed to building an artificial island off its shores that will be home to hundreds of huge wind turbines…

It is the largest construction project in Denmark’s history, and will be as big as 80 football fields. It will be protected on three sides by an enormous sea wall and will have a harbor to receive ships. Some of the wind energy will be stored as hydrogen, which can be liquefied and shipped like liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The immediate goal is to generate 3 gigawatts, which would power half of Denmark’s buildings (its population is 6 million). The project could be scaled up to 10 gigawatts, which would provide electricity to all of Denmark and would allow 4 gigs to be exported to neighbors such as Germany. The project will begin in 2026 and will be finished between 2030 and 2033."

Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................



water.

What a novel idea.

When I was working at the last big law firm I'll ever work at, we represented Vestas. It's a good company, but there are scams galore going on with the power purchase agreements and development deals that are part of the wind industry. Another lawyer at the firm ended up making many millions of dollars by going in house at one of the companies that buy and deploy the wind turbines, even though these things rarely produced the kind of output claimed. What they do is they sell off various parts of the wind projects, often for tax credits, and never really have to live up to the claimed energy production numbers.

It's legal, but like many things that are legal it stinks. The people who make the money are taking it from ratepayers and taxpayers without providing much in exchange.

Given the cost of off shore wind, the efficiency penalty of generating hydrogen through electrolysis and the efficiency loss converting hydrogen to work..... I'm rather skeptical on that prospect. But it might be the only way to fly planes other than bio-kerosene. And even there I think is a mighty big stretch given the fuel container weight and energy density penalties.

Fuel cells seem much more probably in transportation fuel, but looking at it from an economic viewpoint, I doubt off shore wind will be the way hydrogen will be produced. Just too darn expensive. Equatorial solar is about a quarter of the cost, and those costs are still dropping fast.

Gee, that sounds like...............................

big business.

SNAFU

Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient.

But, are the Danes hoping to go for an "economy of scale" type of thing? And it would seem they are going for control of their power needs, self reliance and all that. Perhaps worth some extra cost?

No doubt. My college room mate was the economic analyst for wind power projects for Rabobank for many years, and there really was no analysis done on the performance of the project. It was completely driven by the legal environment and rate incentives.

My best friend in High School just retired after "selling" several wind turbines to the public through a "buy shares in green energy" scheme. He did good, not sure the "investors" will see much of a return, especially since their investment is essentially technically obsolete the day it goes on line.

All that said, by building these things, the technology gets proven, and this allows the engineers to design much better machines and the cost of wind generation is still dropping about 2% per year. In other words, the cost of wind should be about half of what it is today in 30 years.

Yes, but in a quick search, that number is as good, and sometimes better than other forms of electrical generation

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=coal+electricity+efficiency&ia=web

https://www.brighthubengineering.co...r-plants/#natural-gas-fired-power-plants

Of course, it's on the internet and there are likely some built in biases depending on which link you click on.

But in general, even at 50% efficiency perhaps the best benefit would be the end products of electrons and..................... water?

So, how does that compare to the efficiency of transcontinental electrical transmission lines?

Energy independence is a big motivating factor, as is providing a proving ground for their domestic industry. The Danes export a LOT of wind turbines, and having a big show case of the things helps sell. And they do love selling.

The hydrogen thing, in my opinion is a pipe dream borne out of group think. The electricity part makes enough sense I won't quibble. Off shore wind is still relatively expensive, but when your other options are importing natural gas from Putin or the Middle East?

Besides, they are feeling terribly guilty about all the money they are making selling oil from their North Sea fields, and I think this project helps assuage their collective national guilt. Kinda like the Norwegian government decided to basically offer enough tax credits that anyone that bought an electric car did so at nearly zero cost. All of a sudden, 54% of sales were electric cars? Who would have thunk it? Meanwhile, keep pumping, baby!