Sobering stuff. They make the turbine blades on the Isle of Wight, and I often see them brought across the solent by cargo ship. It looks to be a complicated business transporting them: stabilisers, big cranes, pilot boats, etc.
Now I can imagine how often one of these cargo ships, or a similar one sorting out the dynamo bit inside, requiring blokes to work at height above the sea, would have to set out to service the big offshore wind farms. Anything more than 5 years, and someone would need to be out there on a near permanent basis.
Everyone always seems to talk about the life span of the moving parts themselves (which I suppose can always be replaced), but as I understand it the bases themselves ultimately have a limited life span due to the rotational force transferred down through to the tower mounting bolts, such that the surrounding concrete that they're cast into eventually wears out.
Sam - it's effectively an experiment with our national electricity supply. We should probably have promoted nuclear decades ago, but nutters seem to have an obsession with dubious technologies they think they understand.
dearieme - I agree, I avoid numerous videos because the first seconds show they are padding out a few simple points. I've bookmarked the long video this one refers to, but I already know I'll probably never watch it.
Stewart - thanks, I haven't seen that mentioned much, but it sounds entirely plausible. How long is the mounting structure supposed to last? Many decades sounds very optimistic, but no doubt we'll find out.
The concrete foundation will probably be around to keep archeologist busy for millennia, probably quite a lot of that structure above, the bolts that hold it altogether however…
I wonder if any of the various groups of numpties have figured out the long term plan of, once the blades are too worn to use, the turbines break down, and the bases collapse, what do they do with them, and where do they go? The bases of steel and concrete can, I suppose, just be grassed over, but the rest? I have a vision of future archaeologists studying the dystopian past of Britain (The 'Great' long being disused), and asking themselves, "What the hell were they thinking?" . Penseivat
An acquaintance of mine was a pioneer of wave energy. It worked a treat in his lab. But the sea is a hellish demanding environment which is why his lovely invention hasn't been commercialised.
Ships are taken into dry-dock every year for total survey and maintenance. The Forth rail bridge famously used to be continuously repainted, and still had severe rust. Such are the ravages of continuous exposure to salt spray driven by strong winds. What chance do the steel supports, the blades, precision bearings, gearing, brakes and generator at the top of that very high pole have? And when the rusting stumps are left, who removes them?
djc - it all seems like a take the money and run operation, with so many sustainability problems we've yet to see resolved.
Penseivat - this is the aspect which is puzzling, because the sustainability narrative seems to avoid long term considerations such as the sustainability of the structures themselves.
dearieme - I'm sure I recall reading about that - in the seventies I think it was. It's a pity the sea was too harsh for it.
Doonhamer - surely, sooner or later we are going to see some negative mainstream political attitudes towards offshore wind. Politicians may suddenly realise they don't wish to be associated with it.
9 comments:
Sobering stuff. They make the turbine blades on the Isle of Wight, and I often see them brought across the solent by cargo ship. It looks to be a complicated business transporting them: stabilisers, big cranes, pilot boats, etc.
Now I can imagine how often one of these cargo ships, or a similar one sorting out the dynamo bit inside, requiring blokes to work at height above the sea, would have to set out to service the big offshore wind farms. Anything more than 5 years, and someone would need to be out there on a near permanent basis.
Not cheap!
Chatting is an awfully slow way of passing information. One good diagram and a few lines of typing would carry the whole message.
Everyone always seems to talk about the life span of the moving parts themselves (which I suppose can always be replaced), but as I understand it the bases themselves ultimately have a limited life span due to the rotational force transferred down through to the tower mounting bolts, such that the surrounding concrete that they're cast into eventually wears out.
Sam - it's effectively an experiment with our national electricity supply. We should probably have promoted nuclear decades ago, but nutters seem to have an obsession with dubious technologies they think they understand.
dearieme - I agree, I avoid numerous videos because the first seconds show they are padding out a few simple points. I've bookmarked the long video this one refers to, but I already know I'll probably never watch it.
Stewart - thanks, I haven't seen that mentioned much, but it sounds entirely plausible. How long is the mounting structure supposed to last? Many decades sounds very optimistic, but no doubt we'll find out.
The concrete foundation will probably be around to keep archeologist busy for millennia, probably quite a lot of that structure above, the bolts that hold it altogether however…
I wonder if any of the various groups of numpties have figured out the long term plan of, once the blades are too worn to use, the turbines break down, and the bases collapse, what do they do with them, and where do they go? The bases of steel and concrete can, I suppose, just be grassed over, but the rest?
I have a vision of future archaeologists studying the dystopian past of Britain (The 'Great' long being disused), and asking themselves, "What the hell were they thinking?" .
Penseivat
An acquaintance of mine was a pioneer of wave energy. It worked a treat in his lab. But the sea is a hellish demanding environment which is why his lovely invention hasn't been commercialised.
Ships are taken into dry-dock every year for total survey and maintenance.
The Forth rail bridge famously used to be continuously repainted, and still had severe rust.
Such are the ravages of continuous exposure to salt spray driven by strong winds.
What chance do the steel supports, the blades, precision bearings, gearing, brakes and generator at the top of that very high pole have?
And when the rusting stumps are left, who removes them?
djc - it all seems like a take the money and run operation, with so many sustainability problems we've yet to see resolved.
Penseivat - this is the aspect which is puzzling, because the sustainability narrative seems to avoid long term considerations such as the sustainability of the structures themselves.
dearieme - I'm sure I recall reading about that - in the seventies I think it was. It's a pity the sea was too harsh for it.
Doonhamer - surely, sooner or later we are going to see some negative mainstream political attitudes towards offshore wind. Politicians may suddenly realise they don't wish to be associated with it.
Post a Comment