
Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now - howard941
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/offshore-wind-will-be-a-1t-industry-by-2040-but-our-oceans-and-economy-ne/567157/
======
tda
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 nacelles transported over
the road. These limitations don't apply to offshore sites, so the up-scaling
continues. In the last few years typical offshore turbines have grown to about
9MW, but that is not the limit. Within a few years we should see 12-15MW
turbines being installed, which should bring the cost down. Combined with the
better wind conditions offshore (at least around the North Sea) offshore wind
may become cheaper than expanding on land.

~~~
bryanlarsen
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.

~~~
throwaway5752
Yes. Land based ones are often on plains or ridges. Steady and unimpeded wind
is why aerial and offshore have better EROI.

~~~
epoll
Do land-based ones compete with agricultural usage?

~~~
jhayward
No. In fact, they make marginal agricultural operations economically viable by
providing a second source of income to the farmer/land owner.

------
m0zg
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.

~~~
aqme28
It's going to take a lot more than $1T and a decade for fusion to be cost-
competitive with wind and solar.

~~~
cbmuser
How are wind and solar cost-competitive when they can exist in Germany only
with extreme high subsidies?

Look at the new windfarm called "Wikinger" that Germany built near the island
of Ruegen: [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore-
Windpark_Wikinger](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore-Windpark_Wikinger)

Cost: 1.4 billion Euros Lifetime: 20 years Power: 350 MW Max. capacity: 0.4
(40%) Price at the electricity stock exchange Leipzig: 36 Euro/MWh

Thus: 350 _0.4_ 24 _365_ 20*36 = 883 million Euros

Result: 517 million Euros loss

~~~
aurelwu
Why do you set a fixed price of 36 Euro / MWh for the next 20 years. At least
take the phelix Futures to get a somewhat reasonable picture:
[https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures/phelix-
de-f...](https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures/phelix-de-futures)
(45€ Base / 53€ Peak). With the EU-ETS Certs getting more an more sparse and
expensive over time, coal will be phased out more and more which will increase
the price.

~~~
m0zg
Germany already has the highest power prices in Europe. How much higher can
this really go?

------
namirez
Probably the answer is a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear, but if we
want to invest in wind, it has to be offshore.

The power output of a wind turbine is proportional to wind speed cubed and
offshore wind is typically much stronger and more consistent than onshore
wind. Probably we can take advantage of the expertise of oil and gas industry
with offshore drilling to build offshore wind farms. Also it's safer for wild
life.

The downside of offshore wind is the higher wear and tear of turbines. Last
time I checked, composite delamination of turbine blades was still a problem.
Also, it can be hard to recycle composites. Sometimes the only option is to
literally burn them or use them as fillers in other products.

source: [https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-
waste...](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-
problem-caused-by-wind-energy)

------
badrabbit
Oil and gas ("energy") companies are investing a lot into wind energy. They
know they have to adopt. In the end they just want profits and they have the
capital to make the right investments. I really wish the environmentalist
movement saw them as just another money hungry corporation instead some evil
villain out to destroy the planet. They would love to diversify their revenue
stream, now is a good time to work with them because of the huge fossil fuel
demand and the political pressure to wind down dependence on it.

On a separate note, I have two questions: why don't wind turbinea have more
than one "wheel"? And does anyone know if ground tethered floating turbines
(like airships) will be commercially viable?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
> why don't wind turbines have more than one "wheel"

Which I take to mean more than one set of blades? In which case it's because
they interfere with each other, and reduce the power generation possible in
all surrounding turbines. Wind farms come with a minimum separation that is
something like 5 or 10 blade diameters spacing, depending on prevailing winds.
That spacing gives every turbine clear air free of induced eddy currents.

This is also why scaled down rooftop and urban wind generation doesn't really
work - there are too many eddy currents such that generation becomes _very_
intermittent.

~~~
badrabbit
Thank you, first time learnig about eddy currents. Maybe the mobility of sea
based turbines makes them a bit more attractive if they can move around to
position themselves for maximum efficiency?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It's a similar effect to wake turbulence from large jets - invisible without
added cloud or smoke, but can have a dramatic effect, so they space landings
out well.

The offshore turbines I know of are in relatively shallow water, and fixed
construction on the sea bed. Not sure if deep water turbines could move
around, but I imagine the processing needed to calculate would be immense -
fluid dynamics is pretty complex!

------
tda
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.

~~~
apcragg
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-
Wind...](https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-Wind-
Report-2018.pdf)) Page 29

~~~
ppf
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%.

~~~
apcragg
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.

~~~
ppf
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.

------
peteradio
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?

~~~
josefresco
> I see these things failing all the time around me

You do? Where?

~~~
Rebelgecko
I see dead ones at the San Gorgonio wind farm all the time. I imagine the
maintenance situation is even worse for offshore installations.

~~~
jerven
Are they dead/broken or market optimizing power delivery?

Spinning a few down to nothing can be better for a farm total life time
efficiency. You might make more money curtailing output because it is easy to
turn off a wind turbine, compared to reacting with an inflexible baseload
plant.

~~~
Rebelgecko
For many I can't tell the difference between off and broken, but some are
clearly broken (missing blades, collapsed towers, etc). Supposedly a lot of
the companies that were originally operating in the San Gorgonio pass went out
of business, and their old windmills are being gradually replaced.

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

~~~
namirez
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.

~~~
agumonkey
I meant tunnels not Mills though. Something flat.

~~~
namirez
My bad, but I'm curious; how do you generate power in a wind tunnel?

~~~
agumonkey
It's still fans but in arrays. Note that i'm no engineer, i just saw this
somewhere and thought they'd fit nicely under Solar roofs.

------
hnburnsy
To me at least one trillion in culumative investment does not equal a one
trillion dollar industry.

~~~
mac01021
What does, then?

Isn't the "value" of an industry normally taken to be the sum of the market
caps of all the companies in the industry?

~~~
jtokoph
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.

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

~~~
marcosdumay
That would be $1T in cumulative revenue, not $1T/year of revenue.

It is a large number. But it's a different large number from the headline.

------
jokoon
no, we need more nuclear energy

------
account73466
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.

~~~
jandrese
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.

~~~
klenwell
I'm curious about the environmental or ecological impact.

This is a pretty naive question but: will capturing that energy for human use
divert it from other parts of the current ("natural") system where it's being
used?

~~~
krastanov
Energy wise, the orders of magnitude are quite different so I would not worry.
After all, we are not worried about the direct heating from the much more
prevalent source of electricity (waste heat from oil or nuclear), rather we
are worried about the heating from the sun that is exacerbated by the
accidental byproduct of burning oil.

Habitat destruction from these new technologies: no idea...

------
hirundo
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?

~~~
xoa
> _How many birds is it worth sacrificing to build huge wind turbine farms
> instead of compact nuclear reactors?_

As many as it takes to keep even more birds being sacrificed to keep fossil
fuel plants (and in particular coal) running longer. I certainly support
nuclear for non-terrestrial-power reasons, but the fact of the matter is that
it just doesn't have the free market power going for it that solar and wind do
and thus I don't think it can be competitive fast enough. Solar and wind have
enormously lower capex, enormously faster iteration, and avoid security,
military, and geopolitics concerns that affect much of the global population.
That in turn means they have a lot more raw scale potential too.

Nuclear has foot print advantages and many designs may have lower impact in
other ways (though be careful, issues like where to dump heat can be
significant such as a river getting too hot). More importantly in my mind,
nuclear expertise will be necessary for space and they're important sources of
very important isotopes. But on power alone I think their moment has probably
passed. It'd be a very different story if we had internalized carbon emissions
and had a Free Market in energy decades ago, but at this point I don't think
bringing up nuclear as a contrast to renewables is very helpful or interesting
on its own.

~~~
Consultant32452
Solar and wind won't be the solution for the foreseeable future. The price of
energy creation is good, but storage just isn't there. Consider a city like
New York. How much solar power are you going to get in the winter when a big
blizzard rolls through. Or how about Miami when a slow moving tropical storm
comes through. You need to be able to store a more than a week's worth of
energy for these huge cities. Nuclear is the only option.

~~~
beat
Why is nuclear the only option? NYC just made a deal with Quebec to buy hydro
power.

~~~
Consultant32452
I feel like making people add every possible qualifier to what they say is
counter-productive. How about this... Nuclear is the only universally viable
carbon-free option that doesn't require the end user to be in a geographically
ideal location.

