Wind power from the sea: economic efficiency tops all other energy sources

[Redaktion]

Against the trend of rising prices, electricity from wind is costing less and less. Numerous other factors make offshore plants particularly attractive, also in combination with nuclear power.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Wind-power-from-the-sea-economic-efficiency-tops-all-other-energy-sources.844628.0.html

[heffeque]

In some countries (like Spain and Portugal) electricity prices are going lower and lower precisely thanks to solar and wind being installed all around the country, reducing oil and gas dependency and limiting price spikes.

As Sodium batteries come out and start getting dirty cheap, battery stations to level renewable energy output will probably start being a major thing sooner than later.

[Mr Majestyk]

In some countries like Australia prices are going higher and higher despite having huge solar panel uptake and large scale renewable projects in place or in development.

BTW Saudi Arabi is delivering solar power for ~2c/kWhr and the USA for ~3c/kWhr. In Australia consumers are being slugged 30-50c/kWhr and paid vritually nothing for their excess solar.

[KenMac]

The study was by the University of Surrey, not Cambridge. The paper was merely published in the standard Cambridge University Press.

[heffeque]

In some countries like Australia prices are going higher and higher despite having huge solar panel uptake and large scale renewable projects in place or in development.

BTW Saudi Arabi is delivering solar power for ~2c/kWhr and the USA for ~3c/kWhr. In Australia consumers are being slugged 30-50c/kWhr and paid vritually nothing for their excess solar.

So... the explanation is elsewhere. What is the reason?

[vertigo]

The entire life cycle of the turbines was considered, from installation to grid connection, operation and maintenance through to dismantling.

What about disposal/recycling? That's a massive part of the life cycle's cost, yet it's either being ignored here or the article simply left it out. Which is it?

the researchers were able to show that the Fukushima disaster could have been prevented if offshore wind turbines had been available for emergency power

This seems very likely, but my understanding is it could also have been avoided if the backup generators were better protected, which is something pointed out in the planning of the plant but decided against due to cost. So there's nothing special about wind turbines adding extra protection, just having backup power in any form, which could have easily been the case but wasn't due to penny pinching. Still, having it offsite, i.e. with turbines, would probably be good, too.

Not only does wind blow for free to begin with. It blows so strongly around the globe that the global electricity production of all possible power plants could be covered 18-fold by wind turbines.

Sure, but nothing comes for free. When wind energy is exerted on the turbines, the wind itself is diminished. What overall effect is this having on local weather and even global climate as a result? AFAIK (and maybe somebody can enlighten me), there hasn't been much effort to study this. People get all excited about climate change but then do this kind of stuff without fully understanding the effects. And no, I'm not against alternate power; I think it's ideal to have diversification, and to use the resources available at a given location. But I also believe it's important to understand what impact these things are going to have and are having. People that are against nuclear power use the warm water output as a drawback, so why don't they have issue with similar effects from wind/hydro/solar?

In some countries like Australia prices are going higher and higher despite having huge solar panel uptake and large scale renewable projects in place or in development.

BTW Saudi Arabi is delivering solar power for ~2c/kWhr and the USA for ~3c/kWhr. In Australia consumers are being slugged 30-50c/kWhr and paid vritually nothing for their excess solar.

So... the explanation is elsewhere. What is the reason?

I'd imagine geographic isolation, though I'm sure there's politics involved as well.

[heffeque]

What about disposal/recycling? That's a massive part of the life cycle's cost, yet it's either being ignored here or the article simply left it out. Which is it?

Included.

Sure, but nothing comes for free. When wind energy is exerted on the turbines, the wind itself is diminished.

You're a funny guy, aren't ya. Or are you being serious?

so why don't they have issue with similar effects from wind/hydro/solar?

Wind, zero negative effects on surrounding climate.

Hydro, there are effects on surrounding climate and they are well documented.
 
Solar, there are positive effects on the surrounding climate, be it purely solar, be it mixed use (agro-solar), be it over a field, a rooftop, a channel... be it classic orientation, be it bi-facial vertical orientation... All of them bring benefits to the surrounding climate.

I'd imagine geographic isolation, though I'm sure there's politics involved as well.

That's a very vague answer. It could be said that thanks to solar and wind, prices there aren't even worse.

[vertigo]

What about disposal/recycling? That's a massive part of the life cycle's cost, yet it's either being ignored here or the article simply left it out. Which is it?

Included.

Source? Because the NBC article does not state that and the research paper is paywalled, so I'm curious how you've concluded that.

Sure, but nothing comes for free. When wind energy is exerted on the turbines, the wind itself is diminished.

You're a funny guy, aren't ya. Or are you being serious?

You're right, the first law of thermodynamics is really just a suggestion. You're on a computer new website, so I'm going to assume you know at least a little about computers. There's a reason cases are designed specific ways to maximize airflow, because when you put obstructions in the air's path, it creates turbulence and prevents it from getting where it needs to. When you put large obstructions that absorb the energy of the wind, it will have a local effect. Air movement is a *large* part of what creates weather, which contributes to overall climate. Climate change scientists are saying that the change of a mere degree or two in average temperature is leading to increased frequency and severity of storms and overall vastly different weather. Are you saying that's not true? Because you can't have it both ways; either things are affected or they're not. Small weather events in the east Atlantic turn into hurricanes on the west side. Small local variations can and do make a significant difference. And by the way, I never said it was a significant effect, but rather that it's *unknown* because, AFAIK, there haven't really been any (big) studies on it. You could have offered up some info on the topic, like I asked, as you seem so sure about it, but instead you'd rather try to be "a funny guy," and ironically at that.

so why don't they have issue with similar effects from wind/hydro/solar?

Wind, zero negative effects on surrounding climate.

Hydro, there are effects on surrounding climate and they are well documented.
 
Solar, there are positive effects on the surrounding climate, be it purely solar, be it mixed use (agro-solar), be it over a field, a rooftop, a channel... be it classic orientation, be it bi-facial vertical orientation... All of them bring benefits to the surrounding climate.

Wind, again, I've seen little to no real research either way. So I guess now we're just stating "facts" empirically as we see fit. Cool. Gotta love "science."

Hydro, yes, I'm well aware, and that's my point. It causes lots of issues. Whether they're ultimately worth it or not depends on who you ask, particularly whether who you're asking had to move because their town was flooded to make a reservoir or they *used to* live near a river that doesn't exist anymore due to a dam. Again, not voicing an opinion one way or another, simply saying we tend to not think about all aspects of things that we go all in on.

As for solar, I suspect the acres of glass reflecting light (yes, I realize their purpose is to absorb it, but they do reflect it as well) has some affects, and I'm not sure how they could be positive. But I agree, solar seems like the least harmful to the local area out of the three and seems pretty benign. But I also haven't looked at that much.

I'd imagine geographic isolation, though I'm sure there's politics involved as well.

That's a very vague answer. It could be said that thanks to solar and wind, prices there aren't even worse.

I'm sure that's the case, and that they would be much worse without that. But I was speaking to the fact they can't import (as much or as easily, anyways) during periods of high demand and export when they have surplus. Most other countries can, so it allows them to balance production and usage better, whereas Australia isn't as easily able to manage those peaks and dips. Or not. As I said, it's just my guess.

[heffeque]

Source? Because the NBC article does not state that and the research paper is paywalled, so I'm curious how you've concluded that.

No source. For now it's re-usage. Example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-01-02/how-to-reuse-wind-turbine-blades-that-can-t-be-recycled

There's a reason cases are designed specific ways to maximize airflow, because when you put obstructions in the air's path, it creates turbulence and prevents it from getting where it needs to.

Cities, especially with high-rise buildings, do have an influence on wind that is relevant.
Wind mills don't have any impact on wind other than what's immediately behind it, and not in a way that is in any way relevant to climate. I thought that that was common knowledge, no need to know thermodynamics to know that, but I see that it's not the case, sorry for assuming.

Wind, again, I've seen little to no real research either way. So I guess now we're just stating "facts" empirically as we see fit. Cool. Gotta love "science."

The fact that you haven't read it does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Hydro, [...] simply saying we tend to not think about all aspects of things that we go all in on.

Maybe you don't, but scientist think of those aspects a lot, since hydro is a huge mixed bag when talking about climate/biology.

As for solar, I suspect the acres of glass reflecting light (yes, I realize their purpose is to absorb it, but they do reflect it as well) has some affects, and I'm not sure how they could be positive. But I agree, solar seems like the least harmful to the local area out of the three and seems pretty benign. But I also haven't looked at that much.

As commented, it's not only benign, it's actually positive. Read up on usage for channels, agro-solar, and bi-facial vertical panels. Those are the ones that actually improve the biology around it more (not so much rooftop panels, which are not relevant to climate).
As for reflecting... water and snow reflect A LOT and in huge quantities. Solar panels will never be relevant in comparison to oceans' reflection.

I'm sure that's the case, and that they would be much worse without that. But I was speaking to the fact they can't import (as much or as easily, anyways) during periods of high demand and export when they have surplus. Most other countries can, so it allows them to balance production and usage better, whereas Australia isn't as easily able to manage those peaks and dips. Or not. As I said, it's just my guess.

Not only that, Australia is huuuuuge, and very scarcely populated. They are trying their best installing stationary batteries to try to calibrate the grid, but cheap batteries are just starting to be a reality this year (LFP, and especially Sodium-based batteries), so it'll take time until they get more stations approved/built at a much cheaper price.

[vertigo]

No source. For now it's re-usage. Example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-01-02/how-to-reuse-wind-turbine-blades-that-can-t-be-recycled

I've seen nothing about reusing them, only about them ending up in landfills en masse. I scrolled through the article looking at the pictures, but then when I scrolled back to read through it, it became paywalled. Some of those looked pretty neat, but is this something that's actually occurring on a regular basis, or is it just that it's *possible* but not actually being done save for a small project here and there?

Cities, especially with high-rise buildings, do have an influence on wind that is relevant.
Wind mills don't have any impact on wind other than what's immediately behind it, and not in a way that is in any way relevant to climate. I thought that that was common knowledge, no need to know thermodynamics to know that, but I see that it's not the case, sorry for assuming.

And I thought it was common knowledge there's a big difference between a few windmills here and there which, by the way, are typically *much* smaller than a wind turbine, and a wind farm with dozens, if not hundreds, of massive towers. As you pointed out, cities are known to have a dramatic effect, so it's not so far-reaching to assume these would have at least a moderate one. And several years ago, when they were still a fairly new concept, there was concern about this exact effect by many.

The fact that you haven't read it does not mean that it doesn't exist.

The fact that you haven't read it does not mean that it does exist (see how that works). Again, if you know of an actual study (or, ideally, multiple studies) on this topic, feel free to link them. Or hell, even just say they exist and you've read them. But to just say "zero negative effects" with nothing to back that claim does nothing for the discussion.

Maybe you don't, but scientist think of those aspects a lot, since hydro is a huge mixed bag when talking about climate/biology.

You're right, I don't think about those things, which is why I'm not here bringing them up... Yes, scientists do think about them, and clearly they always think of everything right from the start and are never surprised to discover unanticipated effects later. It's not like we've ever gone down a path with scientists not seeing any issues with it only to have major consequences realized at a later point.

As commented, it's not only benign, it's actually positive. Read up on usage for channels, agro-solar, and bi-facial vertical panels. Those are the ones that actually improve the biology around it more (not so much rooftop panels, which are not relevant to climate).
As for reflecting... water and snow reflect A LOT and in huge quantities. Solar panels will never be relevant in comparison to oceans' reflection.

Agreed, which is why, aside from the manufacturing and disposal/recycling, I think solar is probably the best environmentally. But even covering acres of desert with panels, for example, could result in changes in local temperature due to less reflection from the panels than the sand, and this could have farther-reaching effects. True, it's probably minimal, especially compared to other things, but my point is we should be giving more consideration to the effects of projects like these than we often do (or seem to).

Not only that, Australia is huuuuuge, and very scarcely populated. They are trying their best installing stationary batteries to try to calibrate the grid, but cheap batteries are just starting to be a reality this year (LFP, and especially Sodium-based batteries), so it'll take time until they get more stations approved/built at a much cheaper price.

Australia, largely due to the fact it's so large and scarcely populated, seems like an ideal place to use pumped-storage hydropower, i.e. water reservoir batteries.

[heffeque]

it's not so far-reaching to assume these would have at least a moderate one.

Well it doesn't affect, so nothing to worry about there. You can sleep tight knowing that it is indeed far-fetched.

The fact that you haven't read it does not mean that it does exist (see how that works).

Some ecologists go the extra mile on finding things that are "wrong" about anything. They haven't found anything wrong with wind mills other than a few dead birds smashing against the blades (though normal windows actually cause more dead birds, since they sometimes smash into them too), and the recycling part, which isn't yet doable, though reusing them is (and reusing is always better than recycling).

and are never surprised to discover unanticipated effects later. It's not like we've ever gone down a path with scientists not seeing any issues with it only to have major consequences realized at a later point.

You are right... hydro-technology is such a new technology, that there are tons of unforeseen things that might come up due to it.

but my point is we should be giving more consideration to the effects of projects like these than we often do (or seem to).

Why? How is not having negative effects to the surrounding climate, only beneficial effects a bad thing?

Australia, largely due to the fact it's so large and scarcely populated, seems like an ideal place to use pumped-storage hydropower, i.e. water reservoir batteries.

Pumped hydro isn't as efficient as batteries; when drought comes, it can complicate things quite a bit; and hydro dams can't just be built anywhere, so locations are very limited, unlike a battery station that can be put virtually anywhere, and would be most effective near where the energy is being generated.
So yeah, pumped hydro is fairly OK, but placement is extremely limited, and droughts will affect them.