# Offshore windfarm in the U.K.



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Pretty amazing,100 turbines will power 240,000 homes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Two big offshore wind farms get OK
Reuters Monday December 18, 01:37 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - The government has approved two huge offshore windfarms planned near London as part of its drive to cut carbon emissions, but the bigger project still has to clear an onshore planning hurdle.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the environment ministry on Monday gave the go-ahead to the 1,000 megawatt London Array and 300-MW Thanet schemes to build two of the world's largest offshore windfarms.

"Once built, they will mark a significant stride towards our renewables target," Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alistair Darling said in a statement. "Achieving rapid growth in offshore renewables is essential if we are to reduce carbon emissions and improve the security of our energy supplies."

However, local government refusal of planning permission for an onshore substation to connect the Array project to the power network remains a big obstacle for its Royal Dutch Shell-led consortium of backers.

"The onshore side of things is at a public enquiry stage," a spokeswoman for Shell said.

Shell appealed in September against Swale Borough Council's June planning rejection. But it cannot proceed with Array until the issue is resolved.

"It is imperative that large scale wind farms such as London Array get the go-ahead and are built in the not too distant future," Andrew Murfin, a director of London Array Limited, said.

Monday's DTI and environment ministry approvals mean Warwick Energy's Thanet plan faces no such problems.

"That's everything we need," the company's director, Mark Petterson, told Reuters.

Warwick hopes to open its 100-turbine farm, which should produce enough power for 240,000 homes, in 2008.

Shell's partners in the Array project to build 341 turbines off the Kent and Essex coast are the UK arm of German utility E.ON and anglo-Danish wind power developer Core.


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

I hope they do this in Maine soon...one of the candidates for gov. that lost was for it....one "windfarm" is going in in northern Maine....mostly folks are afraid of environmental impact and aestetics....both points are mute IMO


----------



## MaineFarmMom (Dec 29, 2002)

A lot of those turbines in northern Maine are up and moving!


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

UK is a pretty small land mass, so I can see them going off-shore with this.

Brings up a point tho - it will be controlled by some big corp somewhere. Same as any big electric power company. I know you dislike the big power companies controlling things, Booboo. Not looking to start an argument..... 

Ted Kennedy helps pass a ban on wind turbines in some of the better locations of his state. My own silly county passed a ban building them on the ridgeline of my county because it would hurt the view somehow. And so it goes.

I see code restrictions or bans on private windmills to the point only the big outfits like this will be allowed, & then we have the same situation you had in California?

But, I do _like_ the windmills, very cool. I'm all for it. Love to drive past the ones here in Minnesota. Our govenor signed some papers last week working to get to 20% self-reliant on our energy use. Mostly windmills, biodiesel, & ethanol, with some look at bio-mass.

--->Paul


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Yes Paul we can go round and round with "The Big Corps" discussion . . . . . . but on the one side of the coin . .who all can afford the millions $$$ out lay for these Big turbines.

Great that theres a bunch of folks over in the UK that Don't have their heads stuck in the sand----like we do over here . . . and that includes the afore mentioned Kennedy idiot. . . . ."spoil my view" . . . . . and the turbine is a mile or so off shore . . . . . .In reality he can't see that far through those alky eyes of his.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

My only point was 100 Turbines = 240,000 homes powered.  :dance: 

For the crowd that blows em off as 'toys' and 'insignificant' power producers,seems to me to be the real deal....... :shrug: 

Just they are what they are,and good for every one that goes up.Thats my take on it. :bouncy: 

Nice some of the Euro folks are getting powered up.They are jumping on the bandwagon hard over there.Seems farsighted in my book. :nerd: 

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

has there been any recent info about the gens that use the tidal motion of the ocean? that looked like a really good idea to me.

actually i think i was thinking of wave motion and not tidal...


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

NRDC had a story on an engineer who was developing tidal energy generators. Those look like they would have a significant potential in areas with large tidal movements like AK or Norway.

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05spr/gorlov1.asp


----------



## mpillow (Jan 24, 2003)

Having been to Nome AK and lived here in Maine all my life.....Maine tides are much more extreme highs and lows :shrug: I think there is a firm setting up shop here to experiment with the tidal thing...in one of the MBNA buildings in Belfast???

Its all good  ....and the Kennedy's can kiss my beast of burden


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

the wave action gens that i saw online months ago made use of each and every wave twice. the gen was powered by the air compressed as the wave flooded the "chamber". the gen was powered by moving air as the air was compressed and forced out of the chamber and again as the water left and pulled the air back in. the unique turbine design allowed rotation in one direction as the air moved in either direction.

i like this idea because waves never stop. they are constant and repetitive 24/7.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i like this idea because waves never stop. they are constant and repetitive 24/7.



Would be interesting to see the power available on a square foot of wave. Or however you would express it. Power mostly comes from wind energy out in the ocean, correct?

I suppose the tidal versions would rely on filling and emptying a large cove with the tidal waters, spinning the generator?

--->Paul


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Yes coves and even large bays. As long as the water is moving it works regardless of direction. There would be a drop of energy as the tide reverses itself but that is very predictable.

It sounds like the wave energy generator uses water pressure (positive and negative) to compress air. That would be interesting to read more about. 

We will develop sustainable American produced energy despite the government. Emory Lovins just gave a talk on energy and he's convinced that the private industry can develop it with a modest amount of help from the government.

Here's a link to the radio program. It's an hour long but well worth listening to.

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/midday/2006/12/18_midday2


----------



## Fire-Man (Apr 30, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> My only point was 100 Turbines = 240,000 homes powered.  :dance:
> 
> For the crowd that blows em off as 'toys' and 'insignificant' power producers,seems to me to be the real deal....... :shrug:
> 
> ...


\\

BooBoo------Have you kinda figured about how many watts or killowatts each turbine would have to produce to supply 2400 homes per turbine-------hmmmmm---I didn't realize they made a wind turbine with that much output. App 6 million watts per unit per hour, not figuring lose----If I quessed close enough to the average watts per house. Serious wattage. Randy


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

FishHead,GREAT LINK!!.

That fellow sure has a lot to say.I liked his numbers on alternates being used in other countries and the great strides they are making.Like the big growth world wide in electric production using Alternatives.

I liked the comments 'people say it cant be done' and what a roadblock that creates to getting it done,when it is in actuality being done now to a large degree Worldwide.He can back it up with real world numbers too.

I also agree that government intervention in proving if various biofuels are possible by actually building some experimental plants is more than overdue.IE,Manhattan Project R+D is past being needed,we need action NOW.Yes,we can afford it,weve already spent 507 Billion elsewhere in direct costs on another 'project',we can put Billions into energy security by building an alternative energy industry here.

Look around,plenty of governments are actually backing this change,Like Norway and the wind turbines.That little country is emerging as a major WORLD player in large scaled wind turbines for both domestic and export market.Major R+D.WITH their govs. blessing and assistance.Seems like a security issue being wisely addressed by that Gov.,jobs and energy.What a concept!

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Fire-Man said:


> \\
> 
> BooBoo------Have you kinda figured about how many watts or killowatts each turbine would have to produce to supply 2400 homes per turbine-------hmmmmm---I didn't realize they made a wind turbine with that much output. App 6 million watts per unit per hour, not figuring lose----If I quessed close enough to the average watts per house. Serious wattage. Randy


Yup,its 3 MW/per turbine.Yes,they are HUGE!

You will find the 2400 per turbine number all over the web,all over the world (At least I did yesterday researching windplants in Europe),so Im going to say thats reasonably accurate and take the word of the utilities and manufacturers who are providing these numbers.

Thats what it apparently is in the UK.


According to these links I quickly dredged up for the Pacific Northwest.......Based on 3mw turbines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
....displaced approximately 180 megawatts of power, enough for about 100,000 average Northwest homes.....(1666 homes/per turbine)
----------------------------------------------------
Meeting today in Vancouver, Washington, the Council took this step in response to an analysis by the Council's power planning staff that identified 300 megawatts of energy -- enough electricity for about 175,000 Northwest homes -- (1750 homes/per turbine) 
(BTW,with 5 MW turbines you get 2900+ homes/per turbine in the Pacific Northwest.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats the Pacific Northwests estimate.Still nothing to sneeze at,and they use a lot of electric heating there.It appears UK homes use 25% less or so than they do in the Pacific Northwest.Whatever.
I reported what is going on in the UK.

Im not going to get into a debate about this re:their numbers.Thats their reality..Not going to waste my time or start splitting hairs arguing/defending it

Take it or leave it folks.

There are a couple 5MW turbines up and running in the development phase.


BooBoo


----------



## Fire-Man (Apr 30, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Yup,its 3 MW/per turbine.Yes,they are HUGE!
> 
> You will find the 2400 per turbine number all over the web,all over the world (At least I did yesterday researching windplants in Europe),so Im going to say thats reasonably accurate and take the word of the utilities and manufacturers who are providing these numbers.
> 
> ...



No Debate Here--------------I was Just Amazed!!!!!!! Didn't realize they made them that Big!!!!!! Thanks For the Info!! Randy


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Fire-Man said:


> No Debate Here--------------I was Just Amazed!!!!!!! Didn't realize they made them that Big!!!!!! Thanks For the Info!! Randy


Nah,just heading off at the pass the debate aspect,I know its coming.....
and Im too tired to go there.

Seems every alternate power post turns into a debate about how it cant work,just want to note it at face value that it is what it is.Nothing more or less.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Also as every turbine goes on line then the clear headed (not the afore mentioned idiot) folks say; "Well golly gee wizz, this thing is really good. Lets build some more.These are a part of the answer to the world wide energy problems"

Emory Lovins has put together a damn good "think tank" bunch of folks. He is the one--the 'spokesman' who gets the credit for all that good stuff that they (the think tank) comes up with.
A few years ago I, and a hugely overflowing big tent full of folks at the MREA energy fair enjoyed Emory for a hour . . .. good stuff.

Hats off to the folks able to think a head .. . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Fire-Man said:


> No Debate Here--------------I was Just Amazed!!!!!!! Didn't realize they made them that Big!!!!!! Thanks For the Info!! Randy


Me either. Last year when they started talking about installing 100 turbines locally the biggest in the world was one MW. So today with 3 MW that is a significant advance in technology. If they can make that kind of improvement in one year, the future indeed will be bright (pun intended). It is a good thing to have a real alternative to the old standbys.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Off shore turbines seem like a great idea but I have one question. How far out do birds migrate along the shoreline of the Atlantic and Pacific? I'm assuming that it isn't too far and that turbines could be placed far enough off shore to be safe for birds.

There would be the added bonus of the turbine bases acting like artificial reefs.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> Nah,just heading off at the pass the debate aspect,I know its coming.....
> and Im too tired to go there.
> 
> Seems every alternate power post turns into a debate about how it cant work,just want to note it at face value that it is what it is.Nothing more or less.
> ...


I think most folks now know it works, the main problem here is NIMBYism in regard to turbines and transmission lines.


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

Recent studies indicate that more birds are killed by stationary towers and high rise buildings than by wind turbines. The moving blades may actually startle the birds or alert them to the hazard of the generator, blades, and tower.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

tinknal said:


> I think most folks now know it works, the main problem here is NIMBYism in regard to turbines and transmission lines.


I think thats a major issue too.You want power,then face it,it leaves its mark.
I LIKE the idea of folks facing the actual powerplants.Gives you a choice,a visual 'blight' or a smell/danger 'blight'.

No matter the choice,it has consequences.If we all interacted with our power on a personal level in our own backyards (so to speak) I think we would make better choices.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Adding to that;
Those ___BIG___ turbines are __very__ slow turning.

Here goes again . . . .domestic and ferral - cats - kill far far more birds than wind turbines.
It has been published -(not my made up figures)- that wind turbines account for a whopping___.08%__of the bird kill that cats do.

Please put that "bird kill" thing to rest.

. . . . .It Is Not An Issue. . . . . . . . .

If you wanna be nice to the birds--then keep your cat in the house . . . .at all times.

You cat lovers go ahead and flame me if you want . . . .
The truth hurts doesn't it . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

double post....


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Jim-mi said:


> Adding to that;
> 
> You cat lovers go ahead and flame me if you want . . . .
> The truth hurts doesn't it . . . . . . . . . .


My dogs have flashing LED's on a little doodad that clips to their collars.One flashes white/blue,the other flashes red/white.....so you can tell em apart.Little tiny LEDS,extremely bright,3 tiny wafer batteries and they last years.Got them for the RV parks' dog runs (dog areas) at night,they would hide and ignore you,no more of that nonsense,LOL.OK,would have fit an LED thread better,I know,I know......  

Neighbor put a little bell on Wyatt Erps collar (her cat).He was just way too efficient a bird killer,one a day at least.He's a killer,but also a pretty cool kitty,I like him.Funny thing though,he is learning how to run without making that bell tinkle,go figure,goofball he is.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Yea, wind power currently costs a tad more, but so it is with any new technology. It certainly works, in the windier areas, and works well.

There were some problems with the design & location of turbines in California that caused a lot of dead birds. New tower designs & a bit of study has taken care of that bad deal. But, the image will linger.

Fears of noise & 'looks ugly' seem to bother others.

As mentioned, it's the nimby issue.

Sure enjoy looking at those wind farms in SW Minnesota a whole lot more than the smoke from the power plants. 

Some govt in the USA is promoting alternative energy??? Minnesota has a lot of windmills, has been using ethanol for decades, and has been using bio-diesel for over a year. Hoping to get 25% alternative energy sourced in a decade or so. It's not all bad.

--->Paul


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I've also heard that a windmill plant is being build in the southern part of MN.

Windmills don't make our fish toxic either. That's a cost that we rate payers don't see.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

rambler said:


> There were some problems with the design & location of turbines in California that caused a lot of dead birds. New tower designs & a bit of study has taken care of that bad deal. *But, the image will linger.*
> 
> 
> 
> --->Paul



Isn't that the truth. Makes one wonder how nuclear would have fared in this country if the product had been introduced differently.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Found this while looking for something else. Interesting.

The REpower product range comprises wind turbines with an output from 1.5 megawatts up to 5 megawatts and rotor diameters from 70 up to 126 meters. Regardless of whether your site offers strong or weak winds, flat land or mountains, or is onshore or offshore, REpower offers the right solution for all locations and conditions combining: high yields, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fishhead said:


> I've also heard that a windmill plant is being build in the southern part of MN.
> 
> Windmills don't make our fish toxic either. That's a cost that we rate payers don't see.


Yes, a company from India is building blades and nose cones in I think...........Pipestone?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

rambler said:


> Some govt in the USA is promoting alternative energy??? Minnesota has a lot of windmills, has been using ethanol for decades, and has been using bio-diesel for over a year. Hoping to get 25% alternative energy sourced in a decade or so. It's not all bad.
> 
> --->Paul


The former atomic power plant in Elk River now burns Hennipin countys garbage. E.R. also has a landfill that runs a generator off methane from the decomposing garbage.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

tinknal said:


> The former atomic power plant in Elk River now burns Hennipin countys garbage. E.R. also has a landfill that runs a generator off methane from the decomposing garbage.


There is also a windmill along 169 north of Elk River.

Crow Wing County also uses the methane from our landfill to generate electricity. I believe it is piped over to the McMillan wood plant where it is burned in a generator.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fishhead said:


> There is also a windmill along 169 north of Elk River.


Yup, it is right across the road from the landfill.


----------



## dcross (Aug 12, 2005)

<<Some govt in the USA is promoting alternative energy???>>

Well, the feds are behind windpower pretty significantly. The wind farms going up here were put on hold until the energy bill passed, to make sure they got federal subsidies.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dcross said:


> <<Some govt in the USA is promoting alternative energy???>>
> 
> Well, the feds are behind windpower pretty significantly. The wind farms going up here were put on hold until the energy bill passed, to make sure they got federal subsidies.


I think they were also put on hold because of some problem with the FAA.


----------



## dcross (Aug 12, 2005)

Here anyway, there was a delay of over a year waiting for the energy bill, then they started moving forward, then more delays. My parents thought the recent delays were because of a bill introduced by a Senator from Alaska?


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

I know one of the problems involved . .yup . . .homeland security......
Some idiot there took it to mind that those turbines were going to disrupt the "radar network".

Too much time was lost in the process of enlightening those idiots,


----------

