From the “bigger they are, the harder they fall” department comes this monster from General Electric:
GE Renewable Energy GE will invest more than USD 400 million over the next three to five years to develop and deploy the largest, most powerful offshore wind turbine – the Haliade-X 12 MW.
Featuring a 12MW direct drive generator and a capacity factor of 63 percent, the Haliade-X will produce 45 percent more energy than any other offshore turbine available today, the company said.
GE Renewable Energy aims to supply its first nacelle for demonstration in 2019 and ship the first Haliade-X units in 2021.
Towering 260 meters (853 feet) over the sea, more than five times the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France, the Haliade-X 12 MW carries a 220-meter rotor.
Designed and manufactured by LM Wind Power, the 107-meter-long blades will be the longest offshore blades to date and will be longer than the size of a soccer field.
Jérôme Pécresse, President and CEO of GE Renewable Energy said:
“The renewables industry took more than 20 years to install the first 17 GW of offshore wind. Today, the industry forecasts that it will install more than 90 GW over the next 12 years. This is being driven by lower cost of electricity from scale and technology. The Haliade-X shows GE’s commitment to the offshore wind segment and will set a new benchmark for cost of electricity, thus driving more offshore growth.”
AN INDUSTRY FIRST
Introducing the Haliade-X 12 MW, the most powerful offshore wind turbine in the world to date, featuring a 12 MW capacity (the world’s first), 220-meter rotor, a 107-meter blade designed by LM Wind Power, and digital capabilities. In addition to being the biggest offshore wind turbine, the Haliade-X will also be the most efficient of wind turbines in the ocean. Best of all, it’s capable of transforming more wind into power than any other offshore wind turbine today.
The Haliade-X 12 MW also features a 63% capacity factor*—five to seven points above industry standard. Each incremental point in capacity factor represents around $7 million in revenue for our customers over the life of a windfarm.
The offshore wind turbine design of the Haliade-X is what makes it unique. The combination of a bigger rotor, longer blades and higher capacity factor makes Haliade-X less sensitive to wind speed variations, increasing predictability and the ability to generate more power at low wind speeds. The Haliade-X can capture more Annual Energy Production (AEP) than any other offshore wind turbine even at low wind conditions.
This 12 MW ocean wind turbine can also generate 67 GWh annually, which is 45% more AEP than the most powerful machines on the market today, and twice as much as the Haliade 150-6MW. One Haliade-X 12 MW can generate enough clean power to supply 16,000 European households according to wind conditions on a typical German North Sea site. Based on a 750 MW windfarm and an estimated AEP, the Haliade-X 12 MW could produce enough power for up to 1 million households.
Source: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine
h/t to Roger Sowell
No word yet on what the “carbon footprint” of producing and installing this beast is, and whether it will actually going to offset its own footprint during its useful operational lifetime.
Given what happened at the wind farm in Punta Lima, Playa Hucares, Puerto Rico when Category 4 Hurricane Maria made landfall on September 24th, one wonders if the materials in this monster turbine are up to the task of scaling up the size. The wind loading would be massive and untested, and could only be modeled.
Having read the comments so far there is still one question I’ve not seen answered.
How do you install this?
From the article, “the 107-meter-long blades will be the longest offshore blades to date and will be longer than the size of a soccer field.”
Just how do you move blades longer than a football pitch? How many different components need to be transported out to sea and fitted together? What sea conditions are needed for this? How do you crane or balloon the components up there?
It’s not going to be cheap to install. The insurance alone will be a big cost.
And the payouts to the widows.
For M. Courtney, re May 11 2018 at 12:01 pm
The linked video shows a 5 MW turbine offshore installation.
https://youtu.be/88hu8I8WO4k
A heavy lift crane ship with jack up legs carries the components to the site. The legs are extended down into the sea floor, this lifts the ship out of the water.
The crane lifts the components into position.
Roger Sowell,
And when watching this video remember not a single step — from design through to final installation — will wind-power/solar power be involved. No this wind-junk and its installation can only happen because COAL, OIL and maybe SOME NUCLEAR power was used.
These things are not renewable because no component in them can be manufactured (from mineral ore, or oil) without utilizing LOTS of fossil fuels! When maintaining them is also FOSSIL fueled again.
THEY ARE NOT TRULY RENEWABLE! THEY NEVER WILL BE!
For tom0mason re yours at May 13, 2018 at 6:16 am
So, we can then state that you are equally opposed to all hydroelectric power plants, since they rely on a renewable resource (rain or melted snow) AND were built almost entirely by government funds, AND they were built using Coal, Oil, and maybe some Nuclear power, correct? By the way, why did you exclude natural gas from your list of other fuels?
You want to rid the world of those evil hydroelectric plants, also?
Please clarify your position with respect to hydroelectric.
Finally, your statement is entirely false: “. . . not a single step — from design through to final installation — will wind-power/solar power be involved.”
You must surely be aware that wind provided a bit more than 11 percent of all electricity in the EU in 2017, and a bit more than 6 percent in the US. Since wind power is growing annually, the percentages were a bit less in the years prior to 2017. Thus, wind power was certainly involved in every step that required the use of grid-power.
Lastly, your entire rant is a straw-man. It would be interesting to see what you cite as any type of electric power plant that was designed, fabricated, and constructed entirely by the use of electricity. Can you name even one? Plants that are powered by Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, anything?
Please justify your position regarding wind is not to be allowed since energy other than wind-powered electricity is involved in the design and installation.. I’d really like to know why that is such a hot issue for you.
“So, we can then state that you are equally opposed to all hydroelectric power plants, since they rely on a renewable resource (rain or melted snow) AND were built almost entirely by government funds, AND they were built using Coal, Oil, and maybe some Nuclear power, correct? By the way, why did you exclude natural gas from your list of other fuels? “
Typical wild extrapolation from what was said. Just beyond dumb.
Building power plants — real ones (not useless unreliable, expensive junk) is an efficient use of resources. The junk you advocate is a waste of money!
And no I will not clarify hydroelectric because that is YOUR distraction from wind junk that is what this topic of this thread.
“Lastly, your entire rant is a straw-man. It would be interesting to see what you cite as any type of electric power plant that was designed, fabricated, and constructed entirely by the use of electricity. ”
Your understanding of what was I meant is YOUR problem — you appear to have a difficulty with that, solve you own problem.
YOUR STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT is implying that I said power plant were built using only electricity — I didn’t. I said and meant something YOU can not get you head round, refining and finishing aluminum, steel, glass, all the electronic controls, etc., takes electricity to do.
Little, if any, ruinable electricity is used to make glass, steel, aluminum, copper, the magnets in the generators, etc. As for all the HUGE reinforced concrete bases, and exotic fibers and plastics in the blades, yep, all fossil fueled products. As for erecting you wind and solar junk — yep lots of fossil fueled activity there. Then maintenance, for which there is lots — fossil fueled again. Or have you got some pie in the sky magic and fake numbers for that?
Then to shoehorn all this unstable junk on to the grid take a huge effort in re-engineering the grid and the controls.
And all for what?
So that the propaganda of “free energy” will fulfill the dumb elitist’s wet dream of “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” That is why it’s a ‘hot topic’, your advocacy is for higher prices for no good reason.
Lastly all electricity generation should be unsubsidized — PERIOD
does anyone know a good supplier of det-cord?
“One Haliade-X 12 MW can generate enough clean power to supply 16,000 European households according to wind conditions on a typical German North Sea site. Based on a 750 MW windfarm and an estimated AEP, the Haliade-X 12 MW could produce enough power for up to 1 million households.”
Since when was ‘households’ a unit of electricity consumption? The wind speed needed for this monstrosity to produce its maximum output would make more interesting reading.
For JB re May 11 2018 at 3:10 pm
From US Dept of Energy,
“The Power Curve
The diagram below shows the power output of a turbine against steady wind speeds. The cut-in speed (typically between 6 and 9 mph) is when the blades start rotating and generating power. As wind speeds increase, more electricity is generated until it reaches a limit, known as the rated speed. This is the point that the turbine produces its maximum, or rated power. As the wind speed continues to increase, the power generated by the turbine remains constant until it eventually hits a cut-out speed (varies by turbine) and shuts down to prevent unnecessary strain on the rotor.”
Link to article with power curve diagram.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-do-wind-turbines-survive-severe-storms
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
For Jake re yours at May 11 2018 at 3:52 pm
Actually, per US EIA, wind capacity factor for onshore US installations had a minimum of 25 percent in 2017, and maximum of 45 percent. Annual average was around 34 percent.
See the chart at this link:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34652#
Offshore wind capacity factor is typically 10 percentage points greater than onshore.
So this is going to reach 260m into the sky. U wonder how long it will last?
I’m thinking the moment of force at the end of a150m lever will be significant given winds vary considerably between sea level and 150m up.
Also what kind of bearings can take the constant angled pressure of varying wind speed multiplied by 220 meters of leverage?
These monstrosities are appropriately white because they are proving to be white elephants before they ever make back their construction and emplacement costs.
Good thing the People are funding them – we clearly don’t mind constantly doing stuff at a loss.
Whatever happened to economic rationalisation after it destroyed the idea that Govt and utilities shouldn’t be making profits off those who paid for them in the first place?
Aren’t the rotorblade tips a fine target for long-range sniping?
Too much to read above but what struck me first that no one else I read had even questioned was how GE could specify a >60% capacity factor, when that is controlled by the natural intermittency of the wind where you place it, so is highly variable by location. Did I miss something? Weather dependent.
And, of course GE has BWR nuclear plants in its JV with Hitachi that can generate much more electrical energy at zero CO2, far more cheaply than offshore wind when it works, using less natural resources, on the existing grid and 24/7, with no real environmental impact by comparison.. The wind energy will be even more pointless without massively more expensive storage when fossil is off the grid, when only nuclear is capable of meeting demand, on demand.
So why bother with so called renewables? When, “If you can get through the winter with nuclear, you don’t need renewables” Sir David MacKay FRS, UK DECC Chief Scientist. 2008-2014,benchmark enrgy supply author and Bill Gates Top Ten read.. Bonkers.
Could it be the easy money profits guaranteed by legally enforced subsidies for making energy supply expensively worse by science denying law, at the expense of the poor for the profit of the rich? It’s your money.
60 percent output or capacity factor is easy with large turbines in good wind such as offshore EU. They actually put the turbines where the wind is strong and steady. Wind people are clever in that.
As for nuclear, good luck with obtaining affordable rates if an all-nuclear grid is built. (France is or was close to all-nuclear, and nationalized the industry in part to decrease power prices. Their prices were subsidized for decades.)
The U.K. new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point C is subsidized and has very high prices for power sales. And that is based on it running flat out, if it can. Having to run at 60 percent capacity just to meet the daily load swings wound almost double the power sales price. No one could afford that.
The wind is not strong and steady anywhere. In high pressure times it can be effectively zero across the whole UK, Check the facts. Nuclear remains the cheapest new build enrgy supply. EDF/AReva is not a good example of that. What are the subsidies over and above the CfD, BTW? £65/MWh LCOE is going nuclear rate. Suggest you review the IEA 2015 report on enrgy costs.
FInally the cost of storage for renewables without fossil back up makes them massively more expensive than nuclear, which is already cheaper than wind power, offshore or on. As the IEA report makes clear. O I prefer the facts, and enrgy that can respond to absolute demand, on demand. Wind cannot. Simple engineering fact of energy intensity and intermittency. A for nuclear reliability just ook as at the steady nuclear base load line on any grid tracking system. One power station does not make a grid fleet.
There is one sure way to break the economies of the West — destroy their electrical grid!
One sure way to break a grid — put too much unsustainable, unreliable wind energy on it. Just look what it did to South Australia.
The electrical power grid is one of Western civilization’s greatest assets. Without this vast, finely regulated, reliable communal resource all that is left are disparate communities reliant on local resources. Without a correctly functioning grid nations will crumble to chaos. Without reliable electrical power modern Western life ceases — no personal/national communication, no reliable food, water, gas supply, no heating, and only the very basics in medical resources; little or no personal, community, or national security.
So why are we allowing our elites experiment with this essential part of our infrastructure? Why are we not questioning any and every argument that espouses we compromise the grids integrity? Experiments that are being done by foreign companies far from the people affected.
I ask what is so good about ‘sustainability’ when it so threatens your comfort, longevity, and health for generations to come? It’s nothing but a fancy word to hoodwink the gullible to believe that burning any fuel is bad. The UN’s version of ‘Sustainability’ is against sustaining human life and human endeavor.
Windfarms and solar panels are not, by any measure, able to be sustained. You can not generate enough electricity from them to allow the manufacture of even the smallest component of their structure. They are a mirage of virtue signaling, an advert to ignorance by the gullible clowns that advocate them.
Roger, please re-enable your self imposed exile from WUWT. Having fanatics who live in fantasy worlds posting here decreases the credibility of the site.
Airline pilot friend who has flown RR, P&W and GE engines tells me GE make the best aircraft turbine engines. I’ll buy shares when they split off that division.