backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by number999.. on Dec 12 at 4:11 PM

Image courtesy Reuters
Back to the Future

In the automotive industry, manufacturers are looking for alternative ways to conserve energy with hybrids and hydrogen-fuel cell technology. Aircraft designers are using lightweight materials and more efficient engines to cut down on fuel consumption. Now we're seeing that a German company is looking to the past to conserve energy with today's cargo ships.

SkySails GmbH & Co. KG has undertaken four years of trial runs with its 160 square-meter "SkySail." The SkySail is attached to a mast at the front of the ship and is said to reduce fuel costs by 15 to 20% by using wind power.

"I got the idea on a sail boat a few years ago. I love flying kites and found sailing rather slow. I thought the enormous power in kites could somehow be utilized," said Stephan Wrage, inventor and founder of SkySails.

Beluga Shipping is a believer in the technology and is currently having its "MV Beluga SkySails" vessel outfitted with a sail and a computer-controlled central steerage unit. The ship will make its maiden voyage early next year. Beluga Shipping CEO Neils Stolberg estimates the SkySail will drop his company's $7,500 daily fuel bill to $6,000.

"You've got to look at new ideas to cope with developments in oil prices," said Stolberg. "When energy prices double in such a short time, you've got to innovate. We won't be able to switch the engines off. But we're confident we can reduce fuel usage -- and cut emissions."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
An old idea
By number999 on 12/5/2006 11:56:02 AM , Rating: 3
Actually seen this type of modification done to large Japanese freighters awhile ago. It's fine for bulk goods, where time constraints are not that important but I can see some problem for example where winds are not favourable and having to go all engine or worse trying to tack.

As for wind power, although I'm in favour of it, there are limitations to it's use like 20 year lifespans to the towers and the intermittancy of the wind in most areas. In areas that do support it, I do favour it's developement. Most studies show limited impact on bird populations and very little noise pollution nearby. It actually increases the value of the land it's on since the owners lease the land at various prices ($1000-3000 per windmill per year).

As for cluttering the landscape, that is a not a good question. What's worse, the windmills turning in the breeze where farmers can still use the land, or a large industrial complex to generate the megawatts modern society needs? What's the worse eyesore? I don't hold a Thoreau-like devotion to these pastoral areas which aren't wilderness but agricultural land or land that is already impacted by people.




RE: An old idea
By Griswold on 12/5/2006 12:24:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually seen this type of modification done to large Japanese freighters awhile ago. It's fine for bulk goods, where time constraints are not that important but I can see some problem for example where winds are not favourable and having to go all engine or worse trying to tack.


As it is now, they use it to reduce fuel cost, not to replace engines. If theres no wind, they just use the engines instead.


RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 12:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
> As for cluttering the landscape, that is a not a good question. What's worse, the windmills turning in the breeze where farmers can still use the land, or a large industrial complex to generate the megawatts modern society needs?"

Considering that it require tens of thousands of extremely large and massive windmills to equal the power output of a single commercial reactor-- I'll take the reactor hands down. It'll require a tiny fraction of the available land space, it doesn't kill millions of migratory birds per year...and it works 100% of the time, not just when the wind is blowing.


RE: An old idea
By Live on 12/5/2006 1:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to a site where they extract the fuel for your reactor? Or a factory where they process the uranium?

I take wind any day over that.

But I think this idea is just what is needed. Everything must change. There is no ultimate solution until fusion comes around. So we need to conserve energy and use it much more wisely then we do today. Not just make more of it.


RE: An old idea
By saratoga on 12/5/2006 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you ever been to a site where they extract the fuel for your reactor? Or a factory where they process the uranium?


You realize one such site can provide fuel for dozens of reactors right? The fuel consumption of even a large reactor complex is tiny in terms of volume, so the output of a refineing plant can easily supply mid sized countries with energy, alone, so I don't really see your point.


RE: An old idea
By ADDAvenger on 12/6/2006 4:13:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that 95% of the 'spent' fuel rods can be reprocessed back into normal fuel rods. That's because fission makes a bunch of crap that poisons the reaction, so if you take that out, you've got a good-as-new fuel rod, and a twentieth of the nuclear waste to dispose of.

Unfortunately, there has been no nuclear fuel reprocessing in the US since the Carter administration; they thought it was too likely that weapons-grade material would end up floating into the wrong hands. (By the way, IIRC, fuel rods are enriched to ~4% purity, and bombs are enriched to ~90% purity, so don't go telling me that some nuclear power plant is going to detonate into a mushroom cloud...)

So anyway, getting back to the original article...
I like it; it's simple and it works.


RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 3:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "Have you ever been to a site where they extract the fuel for your reactor? Or a factory where they process the uranium? "

I have, yes. In fact, I interned at a yellowcake reprocessing plant in Chita when I was in graduate school. Have you visited any such sites...or are you just working off emotion and hysteria?


RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
> As for cluttering the landscape, that is a not a good question. What's worse, the windmills turning in the breeze where farmers can still use the land, or a large industrial complex to generate the megawatts modern society needs?"

Considering that it require tens of thousands of extremely large and massive windmills to equal the power output of a single commercial reactor-- I'll take the reactor hands down. It'll require a tiny fraction of the available land space, it doesn't kill millions of migratory birds per year...and it works 100% of the time, not just when the wind is blowing.


RE: An old idea
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2006 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Our local power company is starting to put up windmills of it's own rather than getting third party wind power. We've massive wind farms in eastern Washington and Oregon where there's a lot of constant wind and hardly any people (but does have big power distribution lines passing through). They're supply limited (manufactures of the turbines are cranking them out as fast as they can, more would be installed if they were available).

Ones being installed are 1.65 Megawatts apiece. Nuclear reactors in the U.S. produce a bit less than a Gigawatt each on average (I looked it up). A bit of math shows that a nuclear reactor produces about that of only 600 windmills (at least in areas here that are almost constantly windy). When we did have a nuke plant ("Trojan") it had to be shut down periodically for maintenance too, so it wasn't 100% full power either.

I'll take the windmills (We've lots of hydro power here too) but also think that going nuke is inevitable in the long run, preferably fusion.



RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 3:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ones being installed are 1.65 Megawatts apiece. Nuclear reactors in the U.S. produce a bit less than a Gigawatt each on average (I looked it up)..."

What you failed to look up, however, is that 1.65 MW value is a peak output figure. In low or moderate wind conditions, the output is lower. Except in truly phenomonal sites, the mean output is about 35% of peak, and that ignores periodic maintenance which, for a windmill, is high.

That changes your 600:1 figure to more like 1800:1. And a 1.65MW windmill is a truly massive structure. 1,800 such windmills do have a large negative impact on the environment-- noise pollution, millions of migratory bird deaths, and a mining & manufacturing cost associated with the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and metals required to build and maintain such a windfarm.

> "When we did have a nuke plant ("Trojan") it had to be shut down periodically for maintenance too, so it wasn't 100% full power either."

Even with periodic maintenance, a nuclear plant still averages 95%+ of its peak capacity.


RE: An old idea
By Oregonian2 on 12/5/2006 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
When trojan was down for maintenance it was down for a month or more. Don't see how it could have done 95%. But then I saw it in it's older years, maybe it was up a higher percentage when it was young (it's now gone, they imploded its cooling tower a year or two ago).

As to the wind levels, the windfarms in eastern Oregon have high winds
almost constantly, I understand. I'll admit it's probably not a "typical" site in the U.S. generally speaking. Also is why (further west), the Columbia gorge is reputed to be one of the best, if not the best sailboarding places in the world. Warren Miller (some time ago) used to come to Portland for his show's opening in person yearly (despite being a small market relatively speaking) just so he could go sailboarding here.

The area where the windfarms are is one where any noise would not be relevant. It'd be like having them in Northern Canada. Just not very many people there. Probably more than 90% of the states's population (which isn't that big anyway) is within 100 miles from the Ocean. Is there noise pollution if there is nobody to hear it?

In any case, it was claimed to take tens of thousands of windmills to equal a nuke plant. True only if they're put where there is little wind at all.

P.S. - I expect the windmills are intended to be profit making. I suspect it's fuel costs are less than the cost of nuke fuel, processing it, and the long term costs of burial in Nevada (if it ever happens). Not to speak of capital costs where just getting through the planning and approval stages for a nuclear plant has to be insanely expensive.

P.P.S. - Our sites also don't have salty ocean spray being thrown at it. Can't imagine that one on Hawai'i (I was born on Oahu).


RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 8:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "In any case, it was claimed to take tens of thousands of windmills to equal a nuke plant. True only if they're put where there is little wind at all."

True for an average windmill in an average location. There are certainly places where windspeed is more consistently high. These are good candidates for wind farms...but such spots are rare. You cannot satisfy even a small fraction of the nation's power needs from such locations. Thus, windpower may be useful to reduce slightly the need for additional generation capacity...but it will never replace conventional sources.

> "P.S. - I expect the windmills are intended to be profit making."

Then they'll be a unique situation. So far, no largescale commercial windfarm has ever shown a profit, except when government subsidies or tax credits are included.

> "P.P.S. - Our sites also don't have salty ocean spray being thrown at it"

The last time I researched maintenance costs for windfarms, the results were truly horrific, even for those sited in a desert location. That's been several years though, so I admit technology may have improved in the interim.



RE: An old idea
By number999 on 12/5/2006 5:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
moderate wind conditions, the output is lower. Except in truly phenomonal sites, the mean output is about 35% of peak, and that ignores periodic maintenance which, for a windmill, is high
The power output to wind speed is an elongated s shape. Wind beyond a certain speed is not designed to be captured it so it just goes by. In those terms, it is far more likely that it generates in the 80% range for most wind conditions rather than the lowball figure that you give. As for the maintenance costs associated with wind turbines go to
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm

I've read, and from personal experience, turbines make little noise (I've stood under one and a nearby car driving by was loader). As for killing birds, millions of migratory birds is an outlandish unproved figure. More birds die striking lit skyscrapers at night than are killed be wind turbines.

Is there an associated cost to building it? Of course, but then there exists a cost to everything including the cost of sequestering the nuclear waste and the dangers of handling and transporting it.


RE: An old idea
By number999 on 12/5/2006 8:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
As an ajunct to the information
At the huron site
Power is generated at windspeeds between 14.4 km/h and 58 km/h with auto shutdown at 90 km/h. Capacity factor ranges between 27-35%.

Capacity factor-
It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time...A conventional utility power plant uses fuel, so it will normally run much of the time unless it is idled by equipment problems or for maintenance. A capacity factor of 40% to 80% is typical for conventional plants.

This would vary also if the plant was providing base load power or being used for peak power. For base load power, high capacity factors are wanted (and are used to spread out the costs) but for peak power, low capacity factors are typical.

Basically by mixing capacity factor with availability with cost per kilowatt, we try to optimize the output. Given the fact that conventional plants opterate in the 40-80% range, wind turbine capacity factor seems acceptable even putting factors such as peak times and such and the vagaries of conventional power generation. A more detailed explanation of peak power can be found at:
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html#What%20is%...



wind turbine basics - a good site
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html

A good source of facts from an ongoing project in canada
http://www.huronwind.com/huronwind/factfiles.asp

http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html


RE: An old idea
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 8:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "The power output to wind speed is an elongated s shape...it is far more likely that it generates in the 80% range for most wind conditions..."

Sorry, but this just isn't true. According to one the largest manufacturers of high-powre turbines, Siemens, the minimum wind speed to generate any power at all is 9 mph. From there, it is a linear ramp up to maximum power output at 31mph and above. (figures taken from www.powergeneration.siemens.com) Very few sites have winds consistently in the 25+ mph range.

> "I've read, and from personal experience, turbines make little noise "

Rather hard to explain all the lawsuits against them for just this reason, eh? One windfarm in California had to purchase and demolish over 100 nearby homes, due to losing a noise pollution suit.

> "As for killing birds, millions of migratory birds is an outlandish unproved figure..."

Once again, incorrect. The Altamonte Pass windfarm alone kills several thousand birds per year. Over the course of its expected lifetime, thats 100,000+ birds...and thats just one farm. Here's a link with details, along with the obligatory lawsuit by environmental groups: http://www.rppi.org/groupsues.shtml.



RE: An old idea
By number999 on 12/5/2006 9:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry, but this just isn't true. According to one the largest manufacturers of high-powre turbines, Siemens, the minimum wind speed to generate any power at all is 9 mph. From there, it is a linear ramp up to maximum power output at 31mph and above
One it varies according to the size of the turbine among other things, which you did not take into account. Does a home wind turbine have the characteristics as a 5 MW turbine designed for offshore use. Of course not. Heavier larger turbines require higher winds to generate electricity. As for the curve being an stretched out S, what else am I to say it looks like. Check out this.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/pwr.htm

Also the numbers you seem to ignore are from an actual company producing power for an actual grid. Power drops geometrically with wind speed. Going from 5 to 10 m/s means going from 5-10 KW to 200 but going from 10 to 15 m/s means going from about 200 to 600kW on a 600kW Danish turbine.

quote:
Very few sites have winds consistently in the 25+ mph range.
Obviously, you did not see the work I have referenced already. This was just land winds in the US. Offshore wind speeds are more cosistent. Also, there is a difference between ground air speed and the speed of the air where the turbines are, which is of course greater.

quote:
hard to explain all the lawsuits against them...for noise

..a recent study done by the Danish research institute DK Teknik seems to indicate that people's perception of noise from wind turbines is governed more by their attitude to the source of the noise, rather than the actual noise itself.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/sound.htm
or
According to the British Wind Energy Association, the audible noise produced by a wind farm is approximately 35-40 dB at a distance of 350 meters. For comparison, the noise level in a quiet bedroom is approximately 35 dB. At the perimeter of most wind farms, the noise associated with turbines is not sufficiently greater than ambient noise (ie. wind blowing over tree tops, rustling leaves, etc.). In most cases, the noise from road traffic is enough to drown out the sound of wind turbines/farms.
http://www.social.mtu.edu/GORMAN/WindTurbinesandNo...


Being objective and standing underneath one and having no bias against them helps. Maybe being objective would help you.

quote:
Altamont Pass windfarm alone kills several thousand birds per year.
Leslie Evans Ogden, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) estimates that at least 4 million to 5 million birds are killed annually in communication tower collisions in the United States" Add this to the estimated 98 million birds killed annually by collisions with glass windows, especially those of tall office buildings, and it becomes clear that tall structures pose a very real threat to bird populations

Maybe because of Altamont with it's old turbines is the problem.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_mis...

How about a comparison of bird kills, which shows how modern turbines compare and how Altamont stats are unique.
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

National Wind Coordinating Committee(NWCC)report that "data collected outside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine (for all species combined), and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the US by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined

Are birds going to be killed? Yes, but then we're killing a heck of a lot more birds with other aspects of our civilization.



Ogden, Leslie Evans "A Deadly Obstacle Course", Defenders of Wildlife, Fall 2000, pgs. 27-31


RE: An old idea
By ATWindsor on 12/6/2006 8:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
"According to the British Wind Energy Association, the audible noise produced by a wind farm is approximately 35-40 dB at a distance of 350 meters. For comparison, the noise level in a quiet bedroom is approximately 35 dB."

35 Db is by no means a quiet bedroom, maybe if you live in the middle of a busy city it would be more or less quiet for that noisy enviroment, overall, it'snot very quiet.