Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on November 24, 2017

Bookmark and Share

New wind farm in service off the British coast

New wind farm in service off the British coast thumbnail

Norwegian energy company Statoil said Wednesday its Dudgeon wind farm off the British coast is now feeding the grid from its 67 wind turbines.

The Dudgeon wind farm is about 25 miles off the coast of Norfolk. Its turbines, with a combined capacity of 402 megawatts, can meet the energy demands of around 410,000 average households at its peak. The Norwegian company, one of the main energy suppliers to the European market, said Dudgeon is part of its efforts to add more green components to its portfolio.

“As part of our strategy to develop from an oil and gas company to a broad energy major, Statoil will grow significantly in profitable renewable energy, with an ambition to invest around $12 billion towards 2030,” CEO Eldar Sætre said in a statement.

Statoil placed the last of the 67 turbines at the Dudgeon wind farm in place in October. The company said the entire facility was completed on time and below the $1.9 billion budget set when the final investment decision was made in 2014.

Statoil already counts several projects in its renewable energy portfolio. Through a memorandum of understanding signed with the Scottish government, the company aims to install a Lithium battery storage system within two years.

Working since 2012, its Sheringham Shoal is one of the largest offshore wind farms in service in the world with its capacity to provide enough power to meet the annual demands of nearly a quarter million average households.

The United Kingdom ranks second in Europe behind Germany for offshore wind energy capacity, with about 518 megawatts, before Dudgeon was connected.

Statoil reported adjusted earnings after tax for the third quarter at $2.3 billion, more than double the amount from the same period last year.

upi.com



14 Comments on "New wind farm in service off the British coast"

  1. dave thompson on Fri, 24th Nov 2017 3:50 pm 

    The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage.
    Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement.
    In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology. http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/

  2. coffeeguyzz on Fri, 24th Nov 2017 7:25 pm 

    You folks in general, most especially the wind advocates, might do well to start taking notice of all these numbers accompanying the wind stories, particularly in contrast to CCGT plants (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine).
    Up above, it sez plant costs about $2 billion – a LOT – and has nameplate capacity of 402 Mw – TINY.
    Standard operating capacity is about 50%, with more produced at night rather than late afternoon peak demand.

    Of the two dozen massive CCGT plants being built in Ohio and Pennsylvania, cost runs about a billion bucks per 1,000 Mw.
    So … you have 5 times more electricity for 1/2 the cost.
    BTW, none of these puff pieces include the transmission costs (cables) which can be very expensive.

    The London Array wind farm has 650 Mw capacity, delivers 275 as a rule, and has 70 fulltime technicians working 12 hour shifts, 20 support staff, and 5 fulltime crew boats.
    In contrast, the new Lackawanna Energy Center costs little over a billion bucks, has 1,500 Mw capacity (6 times more than the LA delivers), and needs only 30 employees to run.

    The economic devastation being wrought by this embrace of renewable sources will be looked back upon in future years as one of the more bizarre, damaging forays of collective insanity in all of human history.

  3. Go Speed Racer on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 12:00 am 

    What a great capacity number.
    Oh, and when there is no wind??

    Then it has the capacity to
    supply zero households.

  4. Cloggie on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 2:02 am 

    Euan Mearns says: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage.
    Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement.
    In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.

    Euan Mearns is a geologist from Aberdeen who specialized in oil and gas exploration. Later he became a peak oil adept. He is a latecomer in thinking outside the fossil box.

    Which can’t be said of the world-renowned Fraunhofer institute that did deliver a blueprint for a 100% renewable energy base at the same cost for which we get our energy today, mainly from fossil:

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/

  5. Cloggie on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 2:07 am 

    You folks in general, most especially the wind advocates, might do well to start taking notice of all these numbers accompanying the wind stories, particularly in contrast to CCGT plants (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine).
    Up above, it sez plant costs about $2 billion – a LOT – and has nameplate capacity of 402 Mw – TINY.

    coffeeguyzz doesn’t get the point and insists that he can continue to use the atmosphere as a gutter for no cost at all. Just dump your “cheap” CO2 in the atmosphere, problem solved.

    Now that Syria joined the Paris Accords, the US is the last country that didn’t and prefers to continue to behave like CO2-Neanderthalers, like our friend coffeeguyzz
    here.

    Ah well, nothing that can’t be solved with a stiff carbon tax on US products, as far as they still produce anything.

  6. Cloggie on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 2:50 am 

    My favorite country to illustrate energy problems is Croatia. I visited that country last year during the summer. It is a nice, relaxed country. It is not very rich, many people have a vegetable garden and not as a hobby, but… I have seen no tent cities, no beggars, there are still quite some shabby Soviet era apartment blocks, but still. You can live very well in a country like Croatia.

    Female/male life expectancy

    US……..82/77
    Croatia…81/75

    Electricity consumption per capita in kWh:

    USA……..12,007
    Croatia…..3,933

    CO2 emissions per capita in tons:

    USA………16.4
    Croatia……4.2

    GDP (PPP) per capita:

    USA………$57k
    Croatia…..$22k

    Vehicles per capita:

    USA……..797
    Croatia….380

    The takeaway point is that it is very well possible to live reasonably well in a country with a far smaller energy and material footprint than that of the present day West.

    No, Croatians drive in shabby cars, hardly fly, live in less luxurious homes, don’t have many highways, but they live just as long as westerners and (probably) with far less stress.

    That’s why I do not take these apocalyptic peak oil stories very serious, other than related to climate change. Even if we would not manage to replace 100% of our current energy budget with renewable, but “merely” 50%, there would be no man overboard.

  7. dave thompson on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 6:34 am 

    New renewable energy world wide accounts for 1-2% of total energy produced by solar and wind. That is only electricity generation too. Good luck getting to that 50% there cloggie.

  8. Davy on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 6:38 am 

    “My favorite country to illustrate energy problems is Croatia.”
    You compared the US so why don’t you include that as a favorite attacking illustrations?

    “The takeaway point is that it is very well possible to live reasonably well in a country with a far smaller energy and material footprint than that of the present day West.”
    Dutchy, you are always so quaint with your comparisons. Check out the difference in populations, Einstein. I think you are about as extremes it comes for anti-American deceptions. You might check out the difference in GDP of Croatia and the US. Not a good comparison and a traditional way you deceive people. You want to divide up the argument and frame it in binary terms of winners and loser in an economic vacuum. You forget that Croatia relies on mass tourism for a significant income source.

    “That’s why I do not take these apocalyptic peak oil stories very serious, other than related to climate change. Even if we would not manage to replace 100% of our current energy budget with renewable, but “merely” 50%, there would be no man overboard.”
    So dutchy wants to extrapolate Croatia to the size of the world. Ye Ha, that is one big friggen stretch there dutchy. Yea, Croatia has everything the world does in a small package. LOL. You are a techno optimistic denier who uses such examples to paint a deceptive picture. You have no idea what a 50% renewable world means economically. You just have some idea what it means in a very small geographic location.

  9. Cloggie on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 8:29 am 

    New renewable energy world wide accounts for 1-2% of total energy produced by solar and wind. That is only electricity generation too. Good luck getting to that 50% there cloggie.

    That’s the problem of the “the world” then. The picture in Europe is entirely different:

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Infographic_REN-2004-2015.png

    EU at 18% in 2015. Must be 20% by 2020, otherwise stiff penalties.

  10. Cloggie on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 8:33 am 

    You might check out the difference in GDP of Croatia and the US.

    You might want to reread my post, it’s there.

    You forget that Croatia relies on mass tourism for a significant income source.

    20% GDP, so what? Other countries rely on commodities exports.

    You might check out the difference in GDP of Croatia and the US. Not a good comparison

    You absolutely do not make clear why you can’t compare them.

    You have no idea what a 50% renewable world means economically.

    Do you? If so, please elaborate.

  11. Davy on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 8:41 am 

    Dutchy, not percapita Mad Kat version. The Actual number please. Give me Croatia’s GDP and the US gdp. Explain how the global world is going to halve it’s gdp like you are cavalierly advokating with your extremist Croatia US non comparison?

  12. dave thompson on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 5:07 pm 

    “EU at 18% in 2015. Must be 20% by 2020, otherwise stiff penalties.”
    That is electricity only. Even getting to 50% electric generation still leaves the other 50% ff/nuke electric generation.
    Oh yea and the small problem of 90% transportation being provided by FF in the EU will still be a burning issue.

  13. Makati1 on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 5:35 pm 

    Cloggie, per capita is not allowed in some circles here. They don’t like absolutes, just their muddy fiction. Per capita too closely shows the differences and exposes the lies.

    After all, that ‘China pollutes twice as much as the US’ sounds better than, per capita, Chinese actually pollute about HALF as much as the per capita American. AND, China is actually producing things, not consuming them. WIKI

  14. Davy on Sat, 25th Nov 2017 6:30 pm 

    “Cloggie, per capita is not allowed in some circles here. They don’t like absolutes, just their muddy fiction. Per capita too closely shows the differences and exposes the lies.”
    Mad kat, how is using aggregate or per capita have to do with absolutes? How does per capita “too closely” show anything? WTF, it is just a measure it is not a story. So if I read you correctly you are telling us per capita is a lie detector tool? What a friggen loon toon.

    “After all, that ‘China pollutes twice as much as the US’ sounds better than, per capita, Chinese actually pollute about HALF as much as the per capita American. AND, China is actually producing things, not consuming them. WIKI”
    Mad kat, do you have the “WIKI” link for that reference? Otherwise you just made that up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *