Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

utilitydive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#41

Post by creato »

sandermvanvliet wrote: post #19
wil421 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a wind turbine emit greenhouse gasses? During manufacturing? During use? Compared to natural gas, coal, or hydro power?

Don’t have a link handy but I’ve read somewhere that the gearboxes leak oil that then evaporates. Most likely not the cleanest stuff in there. Edit: Link 1: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/two-reasons-why-gearbox... Link 2: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/investigation-launched-hy... Link 3: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/wind-powe...

Is this really a problem? They probably leak at the same rate as any other machine, which includes almost any other power plant. The total spillage or "evaporation" of all wind turbines is probably not more oil than even a tiny oil spill in an oil field or pipeline.

Obviously we should fix a problem here if there is one, but the fact that we're discussing it in the context of larger scale issues is absurd.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#42

Post by josefresco »

hirundo wrote: post #22

How many birds is it worth sacrificing to build huge wind turbine farms instead of compact nuclear reactors? Is the worst case of a Chernobyl or Fukushima worse than the expected case from square miles of spinning blades?

Addressing cats, habitat loss, pesticides and windows might be a good place to start, if you actually care about birds.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#43

Post by kaybe »

consumer451 wrote: post #8
jandrese wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of pulling out excess energy from the atmosphere then yes. But the effect will likely be too small to measure on a global scale. Note that the acceleration in here will be in the reverse direction. Plus the heat will eventually be re-released back into the atmosphere thanks to thermodynamics. The majority of the savings will come from offsetting carbon emitting sources of power.

Isn't removing energy from our over-energized climate system a good thing? I realize that this is a very simplistic view, but if I am wrong I would love to learn something.

You are not removing it, it is just converted to heat (in several steps).

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#44

Post by [deleted] »

apcragg wrote: post #39
tda wrote: post #27

So disappointing journalists never understand the difference between power and energy. The opening sentences make me cringe so much I don't even want to read the rest of the article > Last month the American wind industry hit a major milestone — 100 gigawatts of total installed capacity. That's enough electricity to power the state of California and New Jersey combined for one year.

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct. [1]( https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-W…

[deleted]

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#45

Post by josefresco »

peteradio wrote: post #7

How easy to maintain are these? Have they gotten better in the last decade? I see these things failing all the time around me but perhaps they are just shitty and better manufacturing saves the day?

> I see these things failing all the time around me

You do? Where?

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#46

Post by tda »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #29
tda wrote: post #15

By far the most wind turbines have been built on land and for good reason: it's much cheaper. As long as there is space/not too many people complaining it makes more sense to build on land. Not sure exactly but on land installed wind is probably ~10x the installed capacity offshore. However on land turbines are pretty much maxed out at about 7,5MW, due to logistical difficulties of getting larger blades, towers and n…

It was my impression that the main reason for building offshore is because the winds are much more steady there. The definition of trade wind is a "permanent prevailing wind"; building someplace with "permanent" winds sounds like a good idea to me.

The better wind conditions help, but offshore wind is really expensive. Transport and install alone for a big offshore turbine can easily cost EUR 1-2M. Add to that undersea cables, higher maintenance costs (salt water, difficult access) and it is clear why onshore wind (if possible) is still the preferred choice. Nonetheless, mainly due to the up-scaling and abundance of available ocean space offshore wind has taken off in the last few years.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#47

Post by rukittenme »

tlb wrote: post #34
jtokoph wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the time it will refer to revenue generated on an annual basis. For example, all wind energy companies might spend $1T this year as an investment, but only bring in $10B in revenue. That would be a $10B market.

But manufacturing and installing wind turbines would be $1T/year revenue, since that's where their investment goes.

$1T in manufacturing not in power generation which is the more important and relevant part of the equation.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#48

Post by ppf »

apcragg wrote: post #39
tda wrote: post #27

So disappointing journalists never understand the difference between power and energy. The opening sentences make me cringe so much I don't even want to read the rest of the article > Last month the American wind industry hit a major milestone — 100 gigawatts of total installed capacity. That's enough electricity to power the state of California and New Jersey combined for one year.

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct. [1]( https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-W…

The sentence is literally correct, but misleading. A continuous 100GW might power those two states, but that's not what you get out of a 100GW wind installation. The capacity factor for wind is about 25-30%.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#49

Post by [deleted] »

apcragg wrote: post #39
tda wrote: post #27

So disappointing journalists never understand the difference between power and energy. The opening sentences make me cringe so much I don't even want to read the rest of the article > Last month the American wind industry hit a major milestone — 100 gigawatts of total installed capacity. That's enough electricity to power the state of California and New Jersey combined for one year.

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct. [1]( https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-W…

[deleted]

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#50

Post by tda »

apcragg wrote: post #39
tda wrote: post #27

So disappointing journalists never understand the difference between power and energy. The opening sentences make me cringe so much I don't even want to read the rest of the article > Last month the American wind industry hit a major milestone — 100 gigawatts of total installed capacity. That's enough electricity to power the state of California and New Jersey combined for one year.

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct. [1]( https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-W…

installed capacity equals power. That amount of power either is or isn't enough to power the states of California and New Jersey. The "for a year" part makes no sense in this context.
Post reply on HN