RWE says to build German offshore wind farm ($4b, 960 MW)

[jpak]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/behindTheScenes/idUKTRE4BI1V120081219

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German utility RWE AG plans to build its first offshore wind farm, a 2.8 billion euro ($4.03 billion) project, one that adds it to the ranks of would-be operators off Germany's North Sea coast.

RWE's renewable energy arm, RWE Innogy, said in a statement on Friday it had acquired project company Enova Energieanlagen with a view to installing about 1,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power generation capacity 40 km north of the island of Juist.

The initial preparation work could start in 2010, provided approval was obtained in 2009, and first production could begin from 2011, it said. The plan would be completed in 2015.

Chief Executive Juergen Grossmann called it "the single largest renewable energy project that RWE has embarked on so far.

<more>

but...but...but...according to the wind haters, the EU is abandoning wind power....(not).

[kristopher]

1. Some addition information on this from another article

There's little doubt that the state of the global economy has put the kibosh on dozens of new, capital-intensive projects that were in the planning stages just one year ago. Certainly this includes a number of solar and wind projects that had expected to be in construction phases by now too.

So we were quite happy to discover last week that Germany utility, RWE AG (FRA:RWE) is now planning to build its first offshore wind farm in the North Sea.

The $4.03 billion (2.8 billion euro) project will be installed by Enova Energieanlagen for RWE's renewable energy division, RWE Innogy. Currently, 1,000 MW is expected.

According to RWE, prep work is likely to begin in 2010, with the first production delivered by 2011, and full completion by 2015.

Of course, wind energy's future in Germany is quite strong too. Between a 20 percent renewable energy target by 2020, and a planned closing of all its nuclear reactors by 2020 – every single kWh produced is extremely valuable. So much in fact, that some industry experts expect to see an increase in small wind installations as well. We're talking two or three turbines maximum – each delivering no more than 20kW. It may not sound like much, but certainly small pockets of these less-intrusive turbines can provide the necessary power for small communities.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1660-Baltimore-Renewable-Energy-Examiner~y2008m12d22-A-New-403-Billion-Offshore-Wind-Farm

[Dead_Parrot]

2. A mere 2.5 years!? Awesome!

Oops, sorry, wrong thread. :)

[kristopher]

5. You too?

I thought you were ready to grow up. What was 1) the range of values Jacobson presented for wind and 2) the size of the projects he discussed?

3d. Wind

The globally-available wind power over land in locations worldwide with mean wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 at 80 m is about 72 TW (630–700 PWh yr−1), as determined from data analysis.23 This resource is five times the world's total power production and 20 times the world's electric power production (Table 1). Earlier estimates of world wind resources were not based on a combination of sounding and surface data for the world or performed at the height of at least 80 m. The wind power available over the US is about 55 PWh yr−1, almost twice the current US energy consumption from all sources and more than 10 times the electricity consumption.23 At the end of 2007, 94.1 GW of wind power was installed worldwide, producing just over 1% of the world's electric power (Table 1). The countries with the most installed wind capacity were Germany (22.2 GW), the United States (16.8 GW), and Spain (15.1 GW), respectively.25 Denmark generates about 19% of its electric power from wind energy. The average capacity factor of wind turbines installed in the US between 2004–2007 was 33–35%, which compares with 22% for projects installed before 1998.26 Of the 58 projects installed from 2004–2006, 25.9% had capacity factors greater than 40%.

For land-based wind energy costs without subsidy to be similar to those of a new coal-fired power plant, the annual-average wind speed at 80 meters must be at least 6.9 meters per second (15.4 miles per hour).33 Based on the mapping analysis,23 15% of the data stations (thus, statistically, land area) in the United States (and 17% of land plus coastal offshore data stations) have wind speeds above this threshold (globally, 13% of stations are above the threshold) (Table 2). Whereas, the mean wind speed over land globally from the study was 4.54 m s−1, that at locations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 (e.g., those locations in Table 2) was 8.4 m s−1. Similarly, the mean wind speed over all ocean stations worldwide was 8.6 m s−1, but that over ocean stations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 was 9.34 m s−1.

4a.i. Wind. Wind has the lowest lifecycle CO2e among the technologies considered. For the analysis, we assume that the mean annual wind speed at hub height of future turbines ranges from 7–8.5 m s−1. Wind speeds 7 m s−1 or higher are needed for the direct cost of wind to be competitive over land with that of other new electric power sources.33 About 13% of land outside of Antarctica has such wind speeds at 80 m (Table 2), and the average wind speed over land at 80 m worldwide in locations where the mean wind speed is 7 m s−1 or higher is 8.4 m s−1.23 The capacity factor of a 5 MW turbine with a 126 m diameter rotor in 7–8.5 m s−1 wind speeds is 0.294–0.425 (ESI), which encompasses the measured capacity factors, 0.33–0.35, of all wind farms installed in the US between 2004–2007.26 As such, this wind speed range is the relevant range for considering the large-scale deployment of wind. The energy required to manufacture, install, operate, and scrap a 600 kW wind turbine has been calculated to be 4.3 × 106 kWh per installed MW.37 For a 5 MW turbine operating over a lifetime of 30 yr under the wind-speed conditions given, and assuming carbon emissions based on that of the average US electrical grid, the resulting emissions from the turbine are 2.8–7.4 g CO2e kWh−1 and the energy payback time is 1.6 months (at 8.5 m s−1) to 4.3 months (at 7 m s−1). Even under a 20 yr lifetime, the emissions are 4.2–11.1 g CO2e kWh−1, lower than those of all other energy sources considered here. Given that many turbines from the 1970s still operate today, a 30 yr lifetime is more realistic.

4b.
...The time between planning and operation of a wind farm includes a development and construction period. The development period, which includes the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease the land, monitor winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and obtain permits, can take from 0.5–5 yr, with more typical times from 1–3 yr. The construction period for a small to medium wind farm (15 MW or less) is 1 year and for a large farm is 1–2 yr.66 Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. OK, I pass. You tell me.

Hint: copy + paste = fail.
:)

[NNadir]

3. Given that wind plants operate with 25% capacity utilization - often less - this seems like an awful

waste of money.

This is like building a 250 MWe plant of any kind for 4 billion dollars.

Also, given that Denmark is decommissioning wind plants after 20 years it is triply tragic.\

This is a terrible waste of resources in a time of growing international poverty, and given that every single wind plant on earth is by necessity a redundant system, it's triply worse.

[kristopher]

4. There he goes again, saying things he KNOWS aren't true.

Offshore winds are much stronger than onshore and result in capacity factors of over 40%.

[NNadir]

6. Once again, you are making stuff up and citing references. Here are references.

Decommissioned wind turbines in Denmark: http://www.ens.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_Figures/Statistics/monthly_statistics/Maanedsstatistik_Formler_2007_eng.xls

Spreadsheet B.

The total wind capacity of Danish plants is given here:

http://www.ens.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_Figures/Statistics/monthly_statistics/El-MonthlyStatistics%202008.xls

We see that it's for the 11 months of 2008, 0.0233 exajoules. Adjusted for 1 year by 12/11 to account for missing December we see that it normalizes to 0.0255 exajoules

From spreadsheet A on the above link above we see that 3171 MWe of installed "capacity" for wind plants is claimed for Danish wind, which translates to about 0.100 exajoules if it were continuous.

It follows that the capacity utilization is 0.255%.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about as usual.

[kristopher]

7. You know that isn't an accurate assessment, pottymouth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=179625&mesg_id=180186

3d. Wind

The globally-available wind power over land in locations worldwide with mean wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 at 80 m is about 72 TW (630–700 PWh yr−1), as determined from data analysis.23 This resource is five times the world's total power production and 20 times the world's electric power production (Table 1). Earlier estimates of world wind resources were not based on a combination of sounding and surface data for the world or performed at the height of at least 80 m. The wind power available over the US is about 55 PWh yr−1, almost twice the current US energy consumption from all sources and more than 10 times the electricity consumption.23 At the end of 2007, 94.1 GW of wind power was installed worldwide, producing just over 1% of the world's electric power (Table 1). The countries with the most installed wind capacity were Germany (22.2 GW), the United States (16.8 GW), and Spain (15.1 GW), respectively.25 Denmark generates about 19% of its electric power from wind energy. The average capacity factor of wind turbines installed in the US between 2004–2007 was 33–35%, which compares with 22% for projects installed before 1998.26 Of the 58 projects installed from 2004–2006, 25.9% had capacity factors greater than 40%.

For land-based wind energy costs without subsidy to be similar to those of a new coal-fired power plant, the annual-average wind speed at 80 meters must be at least 6.9 meters per second (15.4 miles per hour).33 Based on the mapping analysis,23 15% of the data stations (thus, statistically, land area) in the United States (and 17% of land plus coastal offshore data stations) have wind speeds above this threshold (globally, 13% of stations are above the threshold) (Table 2). Whereas, the mean wind speed over land globally from the study was 4.54 m s−1, that at locations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 (e.g., those locations in Table 2) was 8.4 m s−1. Similarly, the mean wind speed over all ocean stations worldwide was 8.6 m s−1, but that over ocean stations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 was 9.34 m s−1.

4a.i. Wind. Wind has the lowest lifecycle CO2e among the technologies considered. For the analysis, we assume that the mean annual wind speed at hub height of future turbines ranges from 7–8.5 m s−1. Wind speeds 7 m s−1 or higher are needed for the direct cost of wind to be competitive over land with that of other new electric power sources.33 About 13% of land outside of Antarctica has such wind speeds at 80 m (Table 2), and the average wind speed over land at 80 m worldwide in locations where the mean wind speed is 7 m s−1 or higher is 8.4 m s−1.23 The capacity factor of a 5 MW turbine with a 126 m diameter rotor in 7–8.5 m s−1 wind speeds is 0.294–0.425 (ESI), which encompasses the measured capacity factors, 0.33–0.35, of all wind farms installed in the US between 2004–2007.26 As such, this wind speed range is the relevant range for considering the large-scale deployment of wind. The energy required to manufacture, install, operate, and scrap a 600 kW wind turbine has been calculated to be 4.3 × 106 kWh per installed MW.37 For a 5 MW turbine operating over a lifetime of 30 yr under the wind-speed conditions given, and assuming carbon emissions based on that of the average US electrical grid, the resulting emissions from the turbine are 2.8–7.4 g CO2e kWh−1 and the energy payback time is 1.6 months (at 8.5 m s−1) to 4.3 months (at 7 m s−1). Even under a 20 yr lifetime, the emissions are 4.2–11.1 g CO2e kWh−1, lower than those of all other energy sources considered here. Given that many turbines from the 1970s still operate today, a 30 yr lifetime is more realistic.

4b.
...The time between planning and operation of a wind farm includes a development and construction period. The development period, which includes the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease the land, monitor winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and obtain permits, can take from 0.5–5 yr, with more typical times from 1–3 yr. The construction period for a small to medium wind farm (15 MW or less) is 1 year and for a large farm is 1–2 yr.66 Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

[NNadir]

8. Um, kiddie, did you read your own reference?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

[kristopher]

9. Yes I did.

I'm correct, and you aren't telling the truth. We aren't talking about a nnumber that includes 25 year old turbines; we are talking about new technology offshore.

If you had the facts on your side you wouldn't nneed to work so hard to misrepresent the information.

You KNOW that including first, second, and third generation turbines built overland cannot be a valid predictor of current generation turbines sited offshore. You KNOW that! Therefore you snarl, insult, misrepresent and mislead. Why?

Because you are motivated to make people believe something you yourself KNOW isn't true.

Why are you motivated to make people believe something that isn't true - something that you KNOW isn't true?



3d. Wind

The globally-available wind power over land in locations worldwide with mean wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 at 80 m is about 72 TW (630–700 PWh yr−1), as determined from data analysis.23 This resource is five times the world's total power production and 20 times the world's electric power production (Table 1). Earlier estimates of world wind resources were not based on a combination of sounding and surface data for the world or performed at the height of at least 80 m. The wind power available over the US is about 55 PWh yr−1, almost twice the current US energy consumption from all sources and more than 10 times the electricity consumption.23 At the end of 2007, 94.1 GW of wind power was installed worldwide, producing just over 1% of the world's electric power (Table 1). The countries with the most installed wind capacity were Germany (22.2 GW), the United States (16.8 GW), and Spain (15.1 GW), respectively.25 Denmark generates about 19% of its electric power from wind energy. The average capacity factor of wind turbines installed in the US between 2004–2007 was 33–35%, which compares with 22% for projects installed before 1998.26 Of the 58 projects installed from 2004–2006, 25.9% had capacity factors greater than 40%.

For land-based wind energy costs without subsidy to be similar to those of a new coal-fired power plant, the annual-average wind speed at 80 meters must be at least 6.9 meters per second (15.4 miles per hour).33 Based on the mapping analysis,23 15% of the data stations (thus, statistically, land area) in the United States (and 17% of land plus coastal offshore data stations) have wind speeds above this threshold (globally, 13% of stations are above the threshold) (Table 2). Whereas, the mean wind speed over land globally from the study was 4.54 m s−1, that at locations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 (e.g., those locations in Table 2) was 8.4 m s−1. Similarly, the mean wind speed over all ocean stations worldwide was 8.6 m s−1, but that over ocean stations with wind speeds exceeding 6.9 m s−1 was 9.34 m s−1.

4a.i. Wind. Wind has the lowest lifecycle CO2e among the technologies considered. For the analysis, we assume that the mean annual wind speed at hub height of future turbines ranges from 7–8.5 m s−1. Wind speeds 7 m s−1 or higher are needed for the direct cost of wind to be competitive over land with that of other new electric power sources.33 About 13% of land outside of Antarctica has such wind speeds at 80 m (Table 2), and the average wind speed over land at 80 m worldwide in locations where the mean wind speed is 7 m s−1 or higher is 8.4 m s−1.23 The capacity factor of a 5 MW turbine with a 126 m diameter rotor in 7–8.5 m s−1 wind speeds is 0.294–0.425 (ESI), which encompasses the measured capacity factors, 0.33–0.35, of all wind farms installed in the US between 2004–2007.26 As such, this wind speed range is the relevant range for considering the large-scale deployment of wind. The energy required to manufacture, install, operate, and scrap a 600 kW wind turbine has been calculated to be 4.3 × 106 kWh per installed MW.37 For a 5 MW turbine operating over a lifetime of 30 yr under the wind-speed conditions given, and assuming carbon emissions based on that of the average US electrical grid, the resulting emissions from the turbine are 2.8–7.4 g CO2e kWh−1 and the energy payback time is 1.6 months (at 8.5 m s−1) to 4.3 months (at 7 m s−1). Even under a 20 yr lifetime, the emissions are 4.2–11.1 g CO2e kWh−1, lower than those of all other energy sources considered here. Given that many turbines from the 1970s still operate today, a 30 yr lifetime is more realistic.

4b.
...The time between planning and operation of a wind farm includes a development and construction period. The development period, which includes the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease the land, monitor winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and obtain permits, can take from 0.5–5 yr, with more typical times from 1–3 yr. The construction period for a small to medium wind farm (15 MW or less) is 1 year and for a large farm is 1–2 yr.66 Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a large wind farm is 2–5 yr.

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

[jpak]

12. McCain lost, Obama won - no nukes for you

Sorry the world did turn out the way you wanted...

:rofl:

[jpak]

11. Koo koo, Koo koo, Koo koo

:rofl: