By David Wojick
My regular readers know that I have often referred to the huge size of floating wind turbine assemblies. They are much bigger than fixed offshore wind turbine assemblies because there is a big float attached. This makes floating wind far more expensive than fixed wind, which is already far more expensive than reliable fuel-fired electric power.
Simple physics says that if you want to put a 2,000-ton generator on top of a 500-foot tower with three 300-foot wings attached on a boat and have it still stand up in hurricane-force winds, it will have to be a mighty big boat.
Happily, Philip Lewis from strategic analyst Intelatus has put some numbers on this nonsense in Offshore Engineer.
See https://www.oedigital.com/news/504812-addressing-the-challenges-of-developing-floating-wind-at-scale
Of course, these are just estimates based on proposed designs, not measurements. Keep in mind that no one, anywhere, has ever built one of these Titanic monsters. Governments are setting huge targets for a technology that does not exist.
Based on UK permit applications, we are looking at a colossal individual floater footprint of around 160,000 square feet. That is roughly three football fields, so a mighty big float. And the UK does not get anything like hurricane-force winds. Maybe 100 mph, but never 160.
Weight-wise, Lewis suggests up to 5,000 tons of steel or 20,000 tons of concrete per float. Mind you, 5,000 tons of steel floaters will not keep 2,000 tons on a tall pole upright. These designs are what are called “semi-submersible”. This means the Titanic float is something like half full of water. There is enough air to float it but also a lot of water to hopefully weigh it down. I have yet to see the math on all this and have my doubts about its viability, but this is what is reported.
Of course, these huge floaters make floating wind power extremely expensive. The guess is at least three times as much as the already ridiculously expensive fixed-bottom offshore wind power. It could be a lot more.
These enormous numbers are based on 15 MW turbines, which are the biggest built today, although none has yet been installed and operational offshore. But bigger are coming with 18 MW on order and 20 MW advertised. Floater size and weight scale exponentially with turbine weight and height, so the above huge numbers may actually be quite small.
As an engineer, I would build a few of these monster floating assemblies and run them through a few hurricanes to see how they did, especially if they survived. Of course, the hell-bent Biden folks and green States are doing nothing like that.
For example, next month, Biden’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is selling 15,000 MW of floating wind leases in the Gulf of Maine. California just announced a 25,000 MW floating wind target with 5,000 MW already leased by BOEM.
Just to play with numbers, this 40,000 MW of floaters would take just under 3,000 of these monster 15 MW floaters. In addition to filling up a lot of surface ocean, each has to be anchored to the sea floor with at least three mooring cables, more likely around eight each. Plus each has a live wire cable transmitting its energy output.
Lewis says the depths involved are like this: “In the U.S., the first commercial-scale projects will be off California (500-1,300 meters). Future activity is planned off Oregon (550-1,500 meters), the Gulf of Maine (190-300 meters), and the Central Atlantic (over 2,000 meters).” A mile is roughly 1,600 meters.
So we have many millions of feet of mooring cables and hot wires filling the ocean between the floaters and the sea floor. This is a whole new form of harassment that needs to be authorized (or not) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
What is really funny is I see no plans for building these thousands of Titanic floating wind assemblies. I recently pointed out that the Biden Transportation Dept was illegally diverting almost a billion dollars to build floating wind fabrication facilities in Maine and California. But, neither facility design has what it would take to actually make this stupendous semi-submersible junk, starting with dry docks.
I strongly suggest we put a big hold on leasing and funding floating wind technology. Let’s first see how and if it works and at what cost.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What? Me worry?
Watt? Me, worry?
Very appropriate for the current crop of morons who are proposing all this nonsense. No doubt the dollars are greasing the skids to get it all approved. As usual, “follow the money” to observe who is getting paid off to push this pipe dream.
Perhaps placing a behemoth off shore from every Caribbean Island as they regularly experience hurricanes of Cat 4 and 5,.what they need to withstand.
Surely it’s not only the base that needs to be hurricane proof but the rotor mechanism as well.
It does and don’t call me Shirley.
A floating platform equipped with a mast and large drag device is a sailboat. Keeping that mast stationary, vertical, aimed into the wind, and above the surface will be a challenge. I suspect that anchor and ship technology may not be up to it for greater than a 10MW rated turbine.
Practicality and real costs won’t matter a bit while tax and productions subsidies, kickbacks, and credits rob electrical consumers and taxpayers on the margins to pay off phony wind power crooks and crony politicians.
But at least the wind is free.
If the wind stops, can we whoosh them through the air with diesel- powered boat motors?
Some of this must be utopian planning. with anchors at the bottom pulling “back” and wind at the top pushing “forward”, you have adding forces about a point somewhere in the middle. In essence you will have a propeller, lopsided maybe, but still a propeller with a pivot point.
I’m not a sailor, but I do know what ballast is. I don’t care if is water, steel, or concrete, it operates so that as the boat tilts, the forces on the sail and the ballast cancel. The catch is that the boat can move in the water.
‘ And the UK does not get anything like hurricane-force winds. Maybe 100 mph, but never 160.’
Don’t forget climate change is going to make extreme weather happen much more often, so planners will obviously have to take into account increased wind speeds.
They won’t. Not until after the disaster whether “climate induced” or just waether.
North Ayrshire wind farm was hit by 160mph winds. One Turbine exploded.
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/12/11/wind-turbine-explodes-into-flames/
“And the UK does not get anything like hurricane-force winds. Maybe 100 mph, but never 160″
Storms have gusts of wind. Wind gusts can be far higher than hurricane force winds that are averaged over over one minute.
High wind gusts in a storm causes huge waves exacerbating the effects of high winds.
They never mention the metals needed for bearing in that size turbines.
“the UK does not get anything like hurricane-force winds. Maybe 100 mph, but never 160.” …
“In the U.S., the first commercial-scale projects will be off California … . Future activity is planned off Oregon …”
I’ll never forget when I was in high school and the Columbus Day Storm of October 1962 roared up the coast of Oregon and Washington. At Cape Blanco on the southern Oregon coast, an anemometer that lost one of its cups registered wind gusts in excess of 145 miles per hour (233 kilometers per hour); some reports put the peak velocity at 179 mph (288 km/h). The north Oregon coast Mt. Hebo radar station reported winds of 170 mph (270 km/h).
Can you provide an example of an installed or planned offshore wind turbine with a 2000 ton “generator”? Not calling you out, but I checked and this is the biggest I came up with.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202306/1293347.shtml
“…the weight of the engine room and the generator combination is 385 tons…”
That is more like it.
And the draught will be quite deep.
However a semi-submersible drilling rig when in position, ballasted down to operating draught and with the anchor chains under normal tension still has a little movement at deck level in 40+ foot waves, and the movement at the top of the rig is noticeable.
I am not sure that on a floating structure as described here the generator will survive for long given the strains it will suffer while describing even a small arc as the structure under it moves even slightly. (Obviously in strong winds the blades will be feathered.)
But we have several floaters in the N. Sea at present, although smaller than suggested in this paper, so we’ll know quite soon how they get on after several northerly force 12s.
The Hywind floating farm off Scotland (5x6MW turbines) has had all of the turbines towed to Norway for ‘major maintenance’ after only five years in use.
“Did you know there are more sheep than people in Scotland? Figures show there are 6.59 million nationwide. With a mix of both lowland and upland sheep, flocks are a common sight across much of Scotland’s countryside.”
There apparently are more sheep than people in the Democratic Party
Excellent observation.
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
World’s First Floating Wind Farm to Undergo First Major Maintenance Campaign, Turbines to Be Towed to Norwegian Port
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2024/01/15/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-to-undergo-first-major-maintenance-campaign-turbines-to-be-towed-to-norwegian-port/.
By Adrijana Buljan
.
The world’s first commercial-scale floating wind farm, the 5 turbines, 30 MW Hywind Scotland, officially entered the operations and maintenance (O&M) phase in October 2017. After a little over six years of operation, the Siemens Gamesa wind turbines are now due for major maintenance work.
While offshore turbines undergo maintenance work more than once during their lifespans, and tasks, such as major component exchange are not uncommon, this is the first time this will be done on a floating farm.
“From operational data, we have identified the need for heavy maintenance on the wind farm turbines.
This is the first such operation for a floating farm and the safest method to do this is to tow the turbines to shore and execute the operations in sheltered conditions,” an Equinor spokesperson said in a statement emailed to offshoreWIND.biz.
The maintenance will be performed during the summer in the Gulen Port in Norway as Equinor has awarded the contract for the onshore works to the Wergeland Group, which is expected to finish the campaign in three to four months after the start.
“Wergeland is the closest port with offshore wind experience and sufficient water depth that can service these turbines. The work will be done in close collaboration with the turbine supplier Siemens Gamesa,” Equinor’s spokesperson said.
Hywind Scotland, located 25 kilometres offshore Peterhead in Aberdeenshire, comprises five Siemens Gamesa 6 MW turbines mounted on SPAR-type foundations.
The floating wind farm has been operating with high capacity factors since the commissioning. In 2021, Equinor reported that Hywind Scotland had reached the highest average capacity factor for any wind farm in the UK for its third consecutive year.
DOES MAINE FORESEE HAVING A DEEPWATER PORT FOR MAINTENANCE OF (250) 12 MW FLOATERS?
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and “academia/think tanks”, in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for: 1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and 2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.
About 500 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 200 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Burden on Maine People: Over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
Interesting paper with relevant data: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032120308601
Thanks Tim, but I was looking for validation of the weight first claimed in the second paragraph of the post. I didn’t see it in your good link. The value is repeated at least once, and is describe as “on top” and “on top of a 500 foot pole”. so he is not confusing it with total unit weight. Since it is over 5 times as big as the generator assembly on the recent “biggest” turbine, I’m not sure that the post does a very good job of quantifying “The Titanic scale of floating wind turbines”.
Yes, I’m good with “Titanic”. Just not THAT “Titanic”.
Yeah, and remember what happened to Titanic….
Sorry for the terse entry. I believe Table 8 addresses your question, e.g. IEA 15 MW nacelle weighs 821 tons. I wasn’t suggesting that the link supported the 2000 ton example in the original post, just showing a number between the one you cited and 2000 tons. As you stated, we’re still talking a big weight on a long moment arm.
Thanks, I missed that. You got us up to over 40% of the claimed “generator” (not the entire nacelle) weight, with an installation that has yet to be installed.
I agree that “we’re still talking a big weight on a long moment arm.” But since there are folks who take years of special lessons on designing and building, and decades of applying them, I’m back to looking at life cycle economics. The biggees there are the ever rising finding, development, operating, costs/barrel of oil equivalent, world wide, that the offshore installs must compete with.
There is a lot of information (176 pages) about a 450MW floating offshore wind farm and its 15MW turbines in the following publication by BVG Associates published on behalf of Offshore Renewable Catapult, Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland (May 2023)
Search BVGA-1644-Floating-Guide
How much does the 800 foot pilon weigh? The blades?
Under worse case conditions, the center of mass of the pilon, motor, housing, and blades can not extend past the edge of the base or it tips over.
I have no idea if they’ll work but I have lot of them for sale…
Take no notice of Strat, he once sold me a bridge
Won’t widespread installation increase sea levels?
About as much as melting 10GT of ice would
Land ice, not sea ice. Just a note.
Why is it necessary to put the generator at the TOP of the shaft? Couldn’t the windmill be at the top and the generator at the bottom (even below water level, like the engine of a ship), with a shaft of some kind to transfer to power down inside the shaft? With the generator at the bottom, it would be very bottom-heavy and much less likely to tip over — like a clown punching bag with sand in the bottom. The Space Needle wouldn’t tip over in a 9.0 earthquake because it is firmly attached to humongous concrete weights underground.
That said, the whole notion is ridiculous. No matter whether the generator is at the top or the bottom, it is going to take a HUGE about of energy (mostly fossil fueled) to manufacture the windmills, the generators, the barges, the anchors, the anchor cables, the transmission wiring, all of it. Will these things every be net-positive in energy production, much less in CO2 emissions? What is the total lifecycle energy consumption and production for these, and the total lifecycle CO2 emissions versus savings?
The energy losses in that mechanical link would be a hit on an already bad efficiency rating.
Thanks. That could have been a long answer.
Would work great if we assume the shaft has zero mass or friction.
hmmmm… a shaft with friction….
But the wind is free, so efficiency doesn’t matter. The cost of the equipment doesn’t count in green business calculations.
Yes it is possible. Like the driveshaft of your car there would need to be two direction changes done by some thing. That increases the possible fail points and as noted decreases efficiency. There would still need weight up there to offset the propellers and there gear boxes. But we will see what the many companies put forth proposals.
Added moment of inertia with the mass up high may actually be more valuable than the static stability gain by lowering the CoM.
Last year there were 12m waves in the western Pacific. It requires something with a large span; deep buoyancy and high inertia to handle such waves without rolling and pitching noticeably..
I thought passing through my mind. There would be torsion issues. A long shaft couldn’t be made in one piece. I’m suspecting it would be a point of failure.
Don’t even go there.
The whole idea is stupid and expensive
Story tip – Eco-Hysterics Receive Largest Ever Jail Sentence for Blocking Major Highway in UK – PJ Media
Had a wind turbine blade break off. Look at the consequences of that then add the x factor and the huricane multiplier.
Perhaps all that extra electricity may not be needed after all – press release today from Ford:
GM took the bailout in 08. I’d look at their planning for regulatory policy leaks.
A floating platform will impose added variable loads on the generator’s bearings and gears which must already withstand variable wind speed and direction changes in fixed installations and are currently the most fragile parts of a wind machine. These added loads will shorten their lifetime and increase maintenance cost. Add to that the unavoidable fact that salt eats the heck out of everything suggests that floating wind mills will be the least reliable of any current electricity generator.
As Mr. Wojick suggests, build a couple, moor them in the Caribbean Sea and see what happens.
It baffles how, even if the whole “free energy” from wind is true, how could they think a “floating” turbine is a good idea?
I mean, a storm comes up. The anchors are broken. The transmission and control lines are broken.
Yet (maybe) the thing is still sending electricity into the ocean. What happens to the fish?
Envisioning another remake of Jurassic Park – with a different theme this time on that last note.
Dork.
Yep there are a lot of baby democrat sharks trying to “get” Trump.
And FAILING !
How about juveniles posting idiotic, puerile, unfunny, irrelevant cartoons?
I hear they’re recruiting for someone, anyone with an adult sense of humour to be a cartoonist over at The Guardian.
So much to work with over there.
Assuming Trump is elected, laughably, this whole idea is dead in the water.
The last hope of the libtards.
Trump is well grounded.
Brandon and “the sharks”?
Not so much.
Ummmm, what we used to do in ponds with a generator out of an old crank telephone. Good fishing!
Oh noes! All those massive floating bases have unexpectedly caused catastrophic sea level rise!
On a serious note, how long are these installations meant to last, and how do they get decommissioned when they inevitably prove to be abject failures?
Just a small explosive charge on the float chamber will disappear them by rapid decommissioning, provided the water depth is enough to completely hide the folly.
Torpedoe practice.
“ 2,000-ton generator” really are you that ignorant ? thats 4,409,245 pounds of generator …
Here are the only considerations, wind and solar should not be connected to the grid. Government shouldn’t spend a penny on wind and solar. Follow these two simple rules and we can get on with the business of building fossil fuel and nuclear generators. You know the kind of generators that actually work.
Robert Bryce on the offshore wind scandal: https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/offshore-wind-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think
Costs more to the consumer, kills sealife, funded by foreign government entities and NGOs financed by petroleum interests, no positive effect on warming or the environment, championed by the demented — what’s not to love? <\sarc>
“Based on UK permit applications, we are looking at a colossal individual floater footprint of around 160,000 square feet.”
https://dataopedia.com/walmart-statistics/
A fleet of these things would require some serious space between monsters — but they probably wouldn’t need a parking lot.
The Atlantic ocean is big.
And deep.
And has lots of hurricanes and nor’easters.
Sure they will. Remember those are hazards to seafaring humans and other denizens of the ocean. The area they will require for the anchors add a lot of area.
UK aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales displaces 65,000 tonnes (per wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(R09). Reckoning gernerously that we could suppert 2 each 20MW turbines within that mass budget, the slang term “floater” is pretty much appropriate.
Power is supplied by a mix of diesel reciprocating and gas turbine engines:
UK opposition should demand that each of the wind turbine platforms also be supplied with this same engine power combination.
I can only wonder about the ecology of these things- what sort of creatures will attach themselves under water? Won’t they need to be periodically scraped and painted, like boats?
One report I read put the maintenance costs of a 450 MW offshore wind farm consisting of 30 15MW turbines at £14m pa (BVGA -1644-Floating-Guide)
They will never get the energy out of this junk that was used to manufacture them. Never mind the energy that will be required to recycle them.
Off-shore wind turdines will not be recycled.
They will be sunk to become artificial reefs.
(Intentionally or by nature)
And to leak oil into the sea.
So what? Their purpose is to grift money. When a lot is spent, it goes into someone’s pocket.
But, while current, false, captured markets, for trading electricity generation as a service, and green subsidies exist, “they” will get the money out of the consumers and taxpayers.
“Simple physics says that if you want to put a 2,000-ton generator on top of a 500-foot tower”…” These numbers are based on 15 MW turbines, the largest made.”
That’s not true. Since Lewis’s lack of engineering competence is startlingly apparent , why is Wojick giving him WUWT air time?
There is no such thing as a 2,000 ton wind turbine generator. The largest extant, rated at 16 megawatts, weighs ~350 tonnes, housing and rotation bearing included, 365 tonnes net.
Like cable anchored oil rigs, deep water turbines rely on low angle anchors and float water ballast for stability, not stadium sized concrete structures.
I wonder how the anchors are kept locked in place on the sea floor?
They are designed to dig into the soft seabed as the cable is tightened and eventually they dig in so far that the cable won’t come in any more and when all the anchors reach that stage the vessel / rig won’t move from that position. By slackening some cables and heaving others the whole structure can be moved sideways if required.
Doesn’t work on a rock seabed, though.
Plenty of info in this: BVGA-1644-Floating-Guide pdf
A 1/6th scale wind turbine was left out in a hurricane off Spain:
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/11/04/bluesath-floating-wind-prototype-capsizes-during-hurricane-epsilon/
China already has a two tower floating turbine with a total rating 16.6MW. These will likely be the ones used offshore from the USA. Anything with lots of steel is going to be made in China. Making steel requires burning a lot of coal and only China and India have an unrestricted licence for that.
Bulk carriers have a service life around 20 years. Beyond that, rust and fatigue become problems and risk of breaking up increases rapidly. I expect the design criteria for floating wind turbines will be similar or even worse than bulk carriers. Hopefully the steel will be recycled rather than being left to rot and sink.
Loading bulk carriers requires distributed loading to avoid excessive hull stresses. The first ValeMax super carriers used on the Brazil-China iron ore transport had teething issues with loading stresses. That dates back to the time South Korea was the pre-eminent ship building country. Actually South Korea is back in top spot in 2024 after a few years of China being the leader. Only the steel is made in China. South Korea does not get the free pass on burning coal.
The best hope for the USA is Trump.
“Bulk carriers have a service life around 20 years“ and they require a drydocking every 3 years orso
It is cheaper to drydock for painting rather than use underwater paint, the technology exists to paint things underwater but it costs lots of cash.. Production platforms and exploration rigs are usually painted while in the water.
107 metre long blades has pushed the limits of blade engineering to break point attempting to squeeze as much power as possible out of very expensive support infrastructure to try and make them pay-
Vineyard Wind 1 just became the US’s largest operating offshore wind farm (electrek.co)
The project currently has 47 foundations and transition pieces installed, as well as 21 wind turbines, and the installation of the 22nd turbine is underway. Once completed, the project will consist of 62 wind turbines. Additional power will be delivered to the grid sequentially, with each turbine starting production once it completes the commissioning process.
What now with the snapped off blade and close down at this stage eh chaps?
The first 107 metre turbine blades were mounted offshore on Oct 18 2023 and presumably they’re expected to survive a wee bit longer than 9 months-
Avangrid, CIP Announce Successful Installation of the First Turbine for Vineyard Wind 1 — Vineyard Wind
Gulp!
Has anyone considered the sea level rise that will result from deploying thousands of these massive floating things? Certainly more than 3mm/yr.
/sarc
Klaus has bigger problems than that on his plate right now boyoh-
Vineyard Wind CEO races from crisis meeting as turbine blade break worsens | Recharge (rechargenews.com)
The best laid plans (and engineering calcs) of mice and men as they say. Houston YOU have a problem!