backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Milv949.. on Jul 17 at 9:09 AM


  (Source: Siemens AG)
Project cost $2.84B USD, exploits natural abundance of marine winds

Britain's miles of coasts are home to some of the world's most active marine winds, making them a prime place for offshore wind power.  The nation this week announced the opening of the world's largest marine wind farm installation, a monstrous 630 Megawatt, 175-turbine design dubbed "the London Array".

I. London Array is Turned On

The new farm is the latest bump for the UK, which has more installed offshore wind capacity than any other nation in the world.  The UK currently gets 12 percent of its energy from renewable energy, but it hopes to expand that to 30 percent by 2020.  New offshore wind installations are critical to that goal.

The new farm is located along the coastal border of Kent and Essex, to the northeast of London, facing the North Sea.  It uses Siemens AG's (ETR:SIE) SWT-3.6-120 turbines [PDF] (3.6 MW), which has three blades and a diameter of 117 meters.  The turbines are installed 20 kilometers (~12.4 miles) off the coast.

Here's some videos of the plans and construction of the farm and supporting substation.





The groups have petitioned to expand the installation to 870 MW, adding another 66 turbines to the current count.

II. Green Profit, But Energy Firms are Hungry for More

The new installation is a joint venture owned by Germany's E.ON SE (ETR:EOAN) (30% stake), United Arab Emirates' state-owned Masdar Abu Dhabi Future Energy Comp. (20% stake) and Danish state-owned Dong Energy A/S (50% stake).  It cost a whopping €2.2B ($2.84B USD) to build, but is expected to power a half million homes for at least 30 years.  

Its total annual generation is estimated by the developers to be 2.1 terawatt-hours (tWh) per year, but perhaps a more realistic metric would be 1.65 tWh, if you take the average capacity factor (29.6 percent) of UK offshore wind farms last year.

UK energy costs around 15 pence ($0.23 USD) per kWh [source], so this works out to somewhere between $379.5-483M USD in revenue per year, or roughly $11.4-14.5B USD in revenue over a 30-year lifespan.  However, Prime Minister David Cameron recently announced that the government would mandate incentives to drive the revenue per kWh to three times the base rate, which would be mean over $1B USD in revenue per year.

UK offshore wind
UK companies want longer term guarantees on gov't renewable energy financing commitments.
[Image Source: Siemens]

The UK has 3.3 GW worth of installed offshore wind capacity.  EON estimates the new farm will save 900,000 tons of carbon emissions per year.

While it appears to be a booming era for UK offshore wind, the manufacturers and energy companies are a bit disgruntled at the lack of longer term guarantees from the UK central government.  They wanted plans to run through 2030, but only got targets for 2020.

Greenpeace Executive Director John Sauven tells Bloomberg, "[David Cameron's administration] needs to give the sector long-term certainty by agreeing to cut carbon completely from our electricity sector."

Sources: London Array [press release], Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/2013 8:21:58 AM , Rating: 0
We're only a state of Texas is a county.


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: "UK federal government"
By Cloudie on 7/5/2013 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
The UK isn't a federation, it's a devolved state, as has been previously stated. There's no such thing as the 'UK federal government'. You just say the 'UK government'.


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: "UK federal government"
By freedom4556 on 7/5/2013 12:18:58 PM , Rating: 3
We (Americans) know how the geopolitical landscape of Europe works. It's funny, as much as the British like to berate Americans on the finer points of English, you are seeming to denigrate a valid use of the term 'state.' To reference a Google definition:
quote:
Adjective Of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country: "the future of state education".
http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-a...
They way he uses state to refer to a country is valid. You seem to think that it only applies to subunits of a federation. Have you never heard of a state dinner? The state car? Matters of state? And here you were implicitly belittling American's education.


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: "UK federal government"
By freedom4556 on 7/5/2013 12:52:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not all of you do. I've witnessed the ignorance first hand.
Generalizing about an entire nation's population based on isolated experiences is usually considered beneath enlightened civilization such as the one you purportedly have in Europe.
quote:
nobody in the UK would ever use the word 'state' to describe our country.
I think they would, but even if they didn't it is still valid usage. Just because the USA subdivides itself into units called states instead of provinces, counties, boroughs, shires or parishes has no effect on the international use of the term state as having to do with a country's government.
quote:
I don't recall stating this.
You did with your Texas comment.
quote:
If you were sufficiently educated you wouldn't have incorrectly inferred things I didn't claim
Educated doesn't mean clairvoyant.

In any case, the American usage dates from a time when we were a confederation much like your beloved European Union. The Articles of Confederation did indeed unite independent nations and the term state used then was perfectly accurate: describing a country. The colonies were each separate sovereign units before the constitution was ratified.


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: "UK federal government"
By Morvannec on 7/5/2013 2:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nobody in the UK would ever use the word 'state' to describe our country.
quote:
I think they would


I'm English and I can't think of a time I have ever heard anyone refer to the UK as a state. Not in person, on the radio, on TV or even in writing until today.

"The UK is a state" sounds just as silly as "the USA is a state". You'd refer to both as a country, wouldn't you?


RE: "UK federal government"
By silverblue on 7/6/2013 6:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm English as well, though had I known the simple use of the word "state" would be much to others' chagrin, I'd have been content to just put "The UK is devolved" or simply that the UK wasn't a federation.

Certainly less amusing than putting "devolved union" or "devolved archipelago".


RE: "UK federal government"
By lagomorpha on 7/8/2013 10:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Really? You've never heard of the term "Nation State", "Sovereign state", or in the UK's case "failed state"? :D


RE: "UK federal government"
By freedom4556 on 7/5/2013 1:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the whole point - there are two meanings but nobody in the UK would ever use the word 'state' to describe our country.
And, some proof of my hunch that state is used as expected in the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/overview
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22347924

You have state pensions and state visits, does that not make you a state?


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/2013 2:18:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And, some proof of my hunch that state is used as expected in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/overview


Except that actually doesn't prove the point you're trying to make at all, since a 'state pension' is not an example of someone referring to the UK as a state. It's simply a label given to a particular pension scheme. And either way, the objection which was clearly being voiced was US usage of the word 'state' to refer to the UK due to it's secondary (and most common interpretation) meaning.

The second link is simply a result of an international convention to describe visits between foreign heads of state as 'state visits' - it does nothing whatsoever to indicate what British people call their own country.


RE: "UK federal government"
By Noliving on 7/6/2013 7:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
You are state and country; deal with it!


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/2013 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
And for your further education, here is an article which explains why 'state' is in fact not equivalent to 'State':

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/stat...

quote:
A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States of America).


Note also that the original comment used a lower case 'state'.


RE: "UK federal government"
By freedom4556 on 7/5/2013 12:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
Case is irrelevant in this instance.


RE: "UK federal government"
By testerguy on 7/5/2013 2:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
Because you say so...


RE: "UK federal government"
By BRB29 on 7/5/2013 2:46:51 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, people must be bored to argue over this.

Why are we arguing about what's a state when we still have people confused over what's football or soccer?

Let's just let them call their territory whatever the hell they want.

As far as I'm concerned UK is a country. The EU is a union of countries. HIV can be cured for as little as 40 cents a day.


RE: "UK federal government"
By Skywalker123 on 7/6/2013 5:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HIV can be cured for as little as 40 cents a day.


There is no cure for HIV. But there is hope for you, maybe in a few years


RE: "UK federal government"
By silverblue on 7/6/2013 7:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, there's no specific bottle labelled "the cure", but two men underwent bone marrow transplants and were miraculously cured of HIV.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57592214/two-m...

I imagine you may be referring to this.


RE: "UK federal government"
By BRB29 on 7/6/2013 9:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
No, they've been able to cure HIV for decades. The only problem was cost and it wasn't 100%.

quote:
The organizer suggested they film a documentary in AIDS clinics in Zambia, where one out of seven people is HIV-positive, and one person's daily dose of antiretroviral drugs costs about 40 cents according to (RED) – a cost which many patients are unable to afford


The cost is actually ballooned because of the our society is set up. But 40 cents a day could help cure people with HIV. Not 100% but it's pretty good rate. Magic Johnson didn't live because there wasn't any cure. He's completely cured now and even though he got it years ago. Antiretroviral shots or "cocktails" used to cost 125k a pop and only the rich people can afford it. You don't hear about it because nobody wants to tell the world they got AIDS.


RE: "UK federal government"
By BRB29 on 7/6/2013 9:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
RE: "UK federal government"
By ShieTar on 7/7/2013 5:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Antiretroviral medication does not cure the condition of being HIV positive, but it does most often prevent the most severe symptoms. Thus the persons are not "cured" in the strictest meaning of the word, but they are kept alive and mainly healthy.

Magic Johnson, as anybody else who lives with HIV, still takes a daily dose of medication, and will continue to do so for the rest of his life.

Of course that does not change the sad fact that the profit expectations of western pharmaceutical companies is incompatible with the current economical situation of most African states.


RE: "UK federal government"
By B3an on 7/5/2013 1:19:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We (Americans) know how the geopolitical landscape of Europe works

LOL.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki