Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Giant Wind Turbines

Floating wind farms placed far offshore could lead to affordable electricity -- without cluttering the view.

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Huge turbines mounted on floating platforms could make wind power competitive with fossil-fuel-generated electricity. These advanced wind turbines, which are in development, could be situated far from the shore, too, avoiding battles with onshore residents who object to the presence of large wind farms.

GE has announced a $27 million partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop 5-7 megawatt turbines by 2009, each of which could power well over 1,000 homes. Supplanting the company's current 3.6 megawatt turbines, these giant energy factories should make wind power more economical, since the major cost of building and installing offshore wind farms does not depend primarily on a turbine's size, but on the number of them that need to be erected. By 2015, GE could have even bigger, 10-megawatt turbines, according to Jim Lyons, leader of advanced technology for GE's wind energy business.

[For images and illustrations of wind turbines, click here.]  

Making the turbines larger, however, comes with technical challenges. The new turbines will be mounted to towers rising 90 to 95 meters and will have rotors measuring 140 meters in diameter. Imagine a structure larger than a football field rotating at a leisurely ten to twelve revolutions per minute. To decrease the weight of the massive rotor blades and tower, GE plans to use composite fibers, as well as alternatives to the weighty gearboxes now used to transfer energy from the rotor to the electrical generator.

The new turbines will also need to be more reliable than their onshore counterparts, because maintenance will be far more difficult and expensive. GE is developing new ways to deal with the extreme battering the turbines will receive from the wind.

Today's turbines compensate for changes in wind speed by actively turning their blades to catch less wind. The new turbines will adapt to gusts by using sensor-based technology that will quickly angle the blades out of the wind to reduce the wear and tear on the turbine. These sensors could include basic accelerometers, embedded fiber-optic sensors that detect shape changes in the blades in response to gusts, and forward-looking, laser-based "radar" that allows the turbine to anticipate wind-speed changes.

None of these technological advances will make a difference, however, if erecting monstrous turbines is blocked by shoreline residents who see them as visual pollution. A potential solution is floating platforms that allow the turbines to be located farther out in the sea -- and out of sight. Current projects locate wind turbines in waters less than 20 meters deep. Going farther out on the continental shelf, which extends several hundred kilometers from the U.S. East Coast, would mean locating them at depths up to 50 meters, which is probably too deep to build towers or trusses that support turbines standing on the sea floor, at least at an affordable cost.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Subtract Old Thread
    Guest (Karl) on 05/08/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Waht is htis?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The correct solution
    Guest (CKE) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Finally, folks are onto the right energy track for the longterm future. I'd like to see what sort of money shows first up to build the initial offshore deepwater proof-of-concept windmill farms. Any speculation?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Patents
      Guest (Jason) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I don't know if they'll end up getting enough people on board in time. I do know that I need more time and money so I can start patenting these ideas when I have them instead of readign about them online when someone else beats me to it.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Patents
        Guest (Greg) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Jason,
        Join the club. Push the envelope further.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Deep Water Windmills
      Guest (Charles Schmidt) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Perhaps the state of Mass and Ted Kennedy will provide the funding for the offshore windmills since they think NIMBY.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • not in our lifetimes
      Guest (blert) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Absolutely no need to go off shore until easier land based locations are 'used up.' Of course, that can never happen.

      Oceanic windpower only makes sense for tropical islands that have sweet trade winds. They also have 'small' energy demand. Pumped storage would work for them, as would reverse osmosis water production.

      But truly large scale wind energy production is out of the question in our lifetimes.

      Ultimately, wind will always be a niche.

      Hydropower is the real solution. The tropics abound with fantastic hydro-energy that is not being exploited. There are enough hydro-watts to power the planet as it stands.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • re: not in our lifetime
        Guest (gary w. davis) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I agree, no large scale facillities in my lifetime. However,we need to reexamine nuclear power.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: not in our lifetimes
        JTG on 10/31/2008 at 1:34 PM
        Posts:
        1

        I disagree.  If you adhere to massive land farms of the Pickens Plan, for instance, you are spending a lot of money on land acquisition, legal battles, tensions with local populations, etc.  (Pickens might disagree, since he mysteriously owns a lot of the land in the wind corridor)

        Far offshore rigs combined with unpopulated desert solar and wave energy is the future I think.  It has the interesting cultural side effect of making us think about space colonization as well, if you really want to push day dreaming to the next level.  The idea that you can create energy out of nowhere and maybe live near that energy...
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Vertical axis wind turbine introduces competitive advantage
    Guest (Gert) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I'm still intrigued by this vertical axis wind turbine concept: http://opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=99b82ae5-287f-4bb4-868d-2a44417a564b
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • They had better get cracking!
      Guest (Jak) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      If giant turbines are to be installed, it had better be before the oil gets so expensive and scarce that the resources just won't be there. The idea that distant turbines would be acceptable to coastal residents is just pandering to the rich, who are the main opponents. I think that this resistance will wane when there are energy alternatives diminish. We don't here that much ,the ugly, visible, oil platforms installed off the pacific coast; they are considered necessary.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • i object
        Guest (Nathan Whitworth) on 05/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I objsect that the rich are using the oil faster than us even though they are they still have the right to because, they are more wealthyer than us dosent mean anything.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Vertical Turbines already work
      Guest (Roxanne) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      For vertical turbines already in use, see Oy Windside Production Ltd (www.windside.com).  Pratical, and even pretty.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • [no subject]
    Guest on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    why not just build more nuc reactors?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Really new concept
    Guest (Luca) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    http://www.kitewindgenerator.com/
    It may seems a little strange.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • pdf
      Guest (Luca) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      http://sequoiaonline.com/blogs/ARCHIVIOscelti/intro.pdf
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Do they want power or not
    Guest (Sir Lanse) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I advocate windmills on top of
    city buildings.  The only real argument is having them in shipping lanes near cities.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Offshore turbines
    Guest (Alan B) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    We've got some near us (top left image):
    http://www.industcards.com/wind-ireland.htm

    I think they look fantastic. Especially if the alternative is a particularly nondescript stretch of the Irish sea.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • NIMBA Concerns
    Guest (Steve) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I just don't understand the NIMBA (not in my backyard) concerns relating to windmills. People have to decide which is worse - reducing our CO2 emmissions and dependancy on middle east oil, or what thier view looks like.  Secondly, based on some estimates, up to 25% of species will be extinct due to global warming in the next 50 years or so at our rate of increase in CO2 concentrations.  I think when all sides are considered - windfarms (and tons of them) are a smart alternative.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (Jon) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      yes, you don't understand, but you should try to. First, oil is not used for electricity generation, or very little, so wind power has nothing to do with dependence on foreign oil. Second, wind power is intermittent, that is, it might provide peak load but not base load electricity, that is you cant run a factory or school or hospital on it so wind will never displace a fossil fuel plant. Third, when the wind blows most (winter) is when peak power is needed least. Its not about NIMBY, it's about reality vs wishful thinking.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • [no subject]
        Guest on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Jon, I respectfully disagree. Hopefully in the future, we will not be using fossil fuels, but will either be using electricity, bio-fuels or hydrogen to run our machinery.  The latter two require high levels of electricity to convert from raw material components to a useful energy.  Thus, electricity consumption can directly affect the amount of foreign oil that we use because it enables us to produce our own supplies of energy. The key now is to identify a better storage technology that is scalable.

        Steven
        www.SurvivingPlanet.com
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • wind power versatility
        Guest (zeebo) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I have to disagree.  You are thinking "inside the box" and it is making seem like a giant stain on humanity.  Wind and solar should be the future energy sources because they are not contributing CO2.  While they may not be as steady source as a coal generator, there are probably ways around that.  Better capacitors, batteries etc.  To advocate for the continuation of fossil fuel energy plants is horrible.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Wake up time
          Guest (Joan) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Jon isn’t advocating fossil fuels.  Jon is suggesting we wake up and smell the coffee.  Wind power is not reliable and cannot supply the steady constant energy we need.  It has to be constantly supported by reliable energy.  Now, you tell us what exists now to supply that back up?

          Hmmm.   I wonder how many batteries will be needed to run a city?
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Backup to Wind Power Variability
            Guest (Cliff) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            Hi!

            One way U can back up a wind power farm would be to build hydrogen fuel cells at the wind farm site. When the wind blows, they convert the water to hydrogen. When the wind stops, the fuel cell acts as a giant battery and provides electricity, by converting the hydrogen back to water. The cycle repeats over and over, with minimal loss of electical power flow.
            Rate this comment: 12345
      • NIMBY + base/peak load
        Guest (shetu) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Keep in mind that we're not looking at wind/solar/hydro to replace another form of power generation, but just to supplement it. In that respect, I think it's a great alternative.

        But I do wish people like Ted Kennedy would be more consistent on their views. Don't claim to support wind energy and then refuse to have wind turbines put up in their area. Personally, I think they look pretty slick.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • NIMBA concerns - wind farm "aesthetics"
      Guest (Hal Ade) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Here, here, Steve!! Good for you! Right on!!

      Hal.
      GAtineau, QC.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • nimby
      Guest (roseyred) on 05/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Sweetwater,Tx,Iy's working on ranches there. Palm Springs Wind Mill Farm ia a Tourist Spot.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Already in Europe
    Guest (Danny) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The brits have been working on that since 2003
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3063433.stm
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • In europe too
      Guest (Henri) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I see this in Belgium & holland almost since whole my life, it is clean & cheap energy.. OK you see the turbines.. but at least they don't pollute nor do they give smoke
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • there is no way this will ever work, do you think that energy comes from nothing? You will slow down the wind, and destroy Earths environment stick to oil its better
    Guest (Da Big Show) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    No.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (Willem) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      For how long ?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • slows down the wind?
      Guest (shetu) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Yes, because oil "comes from nothing," right?

      And exactly how much are the turbines going to slow down the wind? And if these turbines are built far offshore, what will the affect be?

      Constructing an office building slows down the wind. Flying a kite slows down the wind. Planting trees slows down the wind. I'm not buying the butterfly effect.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • good point, but...
      Guest (Rob) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      trees also slow down the wind - see any subsurban landscaping book.  Maybe this can make up for rates of deforestation.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Also slows down global warming
      Guest (Rich) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Slow down the wind... hey maybe that is good for the environment??? The energy from the wind goes into producing waves.  The wave energy is eventually transferred to the earth as heat.   Less wind --> less waves --> less GW.  Gee, maybe the weather will be more consistent too since there will be less wind to change the climate...unless that some how this cause the butterflies to multiply faster, then we'll just be back to more wind from all the wing flapping.  THAT'S IT!... Butterfly Power. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Scale
      Guest (O.A.K) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Withall due respect, you don't seem to have a good grasp on scale.  By simply being, everything changes everything else.  The question ... to what extent.  Yes the wind that turns the turbines will slow.  What proportion of global wind are we talking here ... I'm sure one ten billionth would be way to high an estimate ... think jet stream.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • slow down wind
      Guest (henri) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      In my whole life i have seen stupid remarks.. but this scores the Max.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Um
      Guest (Adam) on 05/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I don't really know what to say this response although, it seems to be the the most idiotic comment to say to this topic, it amused me greatly.  So, I wont fully describe how I feel, I just hope it can be implied.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Slow wind
        Guest (Wind man ) on 07/26/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Gee - you guys really don't get it do you, even wind farms designers know that each wind turbine extracts energy from the wind and therefore you have to allow for that in the layout of a farm, so yes wind turbines do slow the wind down. Slow it down too much and you have a big problem, this is one big eco system suck too much energy from it and there will be consequences, smog anyone, no refreshing breeze to remove car fumes, its about scale - too many farms will cause problems - try reducing the population by 2/3 d's that will sort it out .
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Wind power can play well with others . . .
    Guest (Mark Shapiro) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Wind power continues to mature technologically and come down in price.  We can deal with intermittency by having a portfolio of turbines in different places, plus real time pricing and demand side management.  Storage (outside of the batteries in your phone or iPod) may not be necessary at all.  Wind, and other renewables, look better all the time.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Protect the Kennedys' view?
    Guest (ms) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    If we don't start seriously reducing our use of fossil fuels, Cape Cod will disappear under water due to global warming induced sea level rise.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • re: Kennedy's view
      Guest (Kris Saseniuk) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Great point. Though they probably have lots of land farther in land too.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • kennedy's view
        Guest (roseyred) on 05/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        your kidding,right?
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Wind vs Waves
    Guest (Roy) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Given that you now have to construct fancy platforms far out at sea along with more rugged and expensive turbine,  the question is:  Why wouldn't you want to use wave power instead? It has none of the view or bird-kill problems and if the area covered is not an issue then it can easily generate as much power. There are numerous companies exploring this option with a variety of designs.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • wind vs. waves
      Guest (shetu) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I don't see this as being a wind vs. waves issue -- no more than it's a wind vs. solar vs. hydro vs. nuclear vs. coal vs. natural gas. The point of all of these alternative energy sources is to supplement the power grid, not to execute a hostile takeover for exclusive control.

      So if we flip each "vs" to a plus (+), that'll make more sense to me.

      Today's power plants are really just portfolios of turbines from different energy sources. When natural gas is cheap, they fire the gas turbines and ease up on the coal furnaces. And when natural gas prices shoot up, they let the gas turbines rest and rely on the coal furnaces. So even today, there's not a single source used for power generation. All we are doing with wind/solar/etc. is give additional support to the grid so we're not dependent on any single source of turbine fuel.

      Competition is a wonderful thing.
      Rate this comment: 12345