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

51–60 of 182 posts

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

#51

Post by apcragg »

ppf wrote: post #48
apcragg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" which is not true.

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

#52

Post by xyzzyz »

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…

You can power some number of houses with 100 MW, or you can power the same number of houses for a year with 876 GWh, but you cannot power them for a year with 100 MW. It's as wrong as saying that the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is 60 miles per hour.

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

#53

Post by kaybe »

account73466 wrote: post #2

Will wind turbines accelerate climate change? edit: during its exploitation I was involved in design of Wind Farms and they affect wind directions at least locally. Naturally, they change climate locally. The question is how local is not global enough.

Interesting question, seems it's still open but has been found worthy of study. There are probably research groups working on it right now.

Review paper (2015):

'Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: A rising spectre'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211...

'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms'

https://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.short#sec-2

'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms'

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-201...

edit: There's more!

'Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation'

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-0024...

'Climate Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Farms as Parameterized in a Global Climate Model '

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/1019

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

#55

Post by dang »

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…

I know it's provocative to run across a comment that seems both wrong and arrogant, but please correct the former without escalating the latter. Then the thread for sure moves in a better direction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#56

Post by namirez »

agumonkey wrote: post #20

how "stupid" would it be to turn all building roofs as solar surfaces and wind tunnels ?

What others said, plus the fact that most municipalities don't allow it. As a rule of thumb, the distance from a turbine to a permanent structure must be larger than the height of the turbine.

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

#57

Post by ppf »

apcragg wrote: post #51
ppf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" whic…

You've highlighted my essential issue with wind (and other renewables). Under the guise of "ah the dumb public won't understand", things like the actual expected output of a wind farm are hidden. It's a long enough road to renewable energy without hiding away the essential facts. The capacity factor, and resulting actual output of a wind farm, is the most important figure, along with its cost (which is a whole different debate).

Also, as has been pointed out, the loose use of terms for power and energy in the article is enough to make an engineer wince.

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

#59

Post by aqme28 »

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.

There are other advantages. Urban centers are often a lot closer to the sea than they are to the large open spaces suitable for wind.

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

#60

Post by aqme28 »

m0zg wrote: post #58

This is nuts. I wonder what the effect of spending $1T on nuclear would be in comparison. I bet it's enough money to get to practical nuclear fusion in a decade, which would largely obviate the need in most other energy generation methods.

It's going to take a lot more than $1T and a decade for fusion to be cost-competitive with wind and solar.
Post reply on HN