navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Floating wind to hydrogen plan.  (Read 255 times)
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5183



« on: September 13, 2019, 09:21:08 PM »

https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1850034/floating-wind-to-hydrogen-plan-to-heat-millions-of-uk-homes
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
ewaste
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2019, 11:28:27 PM »

If you had 30 of those in the North Sea you could totally replace the natural gas requirement for the whole country, and be totally self-sufficient with hydrogen, said Kinsella.

4GW x 30 = 120GW

Number of Hours per year = 8760

120GW * 8760 = 1051200GWh / 1000 = 1051.2TWh

Floating Offshore Wind Demonstrator 65% over 3 Month example period Nov-Jan 2018.

65% of 1051.2 = 683.28TWh

Electrolyser Efficiency ~80%

80% of 683.28 = 546.624TWh

UK Natural Gas Consumption 2018 = 881TWh

That's about 10,000 Haliade-X Turbines at 12MW

"Currently, turbines on these large wind farms are spaced about seven rotor diameters apart. The new spacing model developed by Meneveau and Johan Meyers, an assistant professor at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, suggests that placing the wind turbines 15 rotor diameters apart -- more than twice as far apart as in the current layouts -- results in more cost-efficient power generation."

220m Rotor Diameter x 15 x Pie etc = 8.552985999 km2

8.552985999 x 10,000 = 85529.85999km2

Area of Scotland = 80,077 km

Job Still not done hysteria...








« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 11:58:53 PM by ewaste » Logged
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002


« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2019, 12:19:08 AM »

Your maths do make sense when combined with the optimism of someone selling a solution for 2030 and beyond.

Currently, 273TWh of the UK Natural Gas Consumption 2018 figure is for power stations - the 'vision' is that this will be far less by 2040.

The grand hope for the electrolysis process they are using (PEM) is to raise the efficiency from 80% to possibly 86% (best case) by 2030.


Add in a lot of hope, pixie dust and the odd prayer and we can have the whole North Sea full of very large Turbines producing hydrogen in 20 years.
Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
ewaste
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2019, 01:17:58 AM »

Currently, 273TWh of the UK Natural Gas Consumption 2018 figure is for power stations - the 'vision' is that this will be far less by 2040.

Indeed I spotted that as well there is also a lot of Gas being used elsewhere, being fairer to Mr Kinsella the Domestic demand is around 300TWh so 'doable'  wackoold and if we stay somewhat in reality the improvements in efficiency of new housing stock and increasing population should at the least keep demand static if not start tailing off a few percentage points a year. If we start getting into the land of pixie dust then with Passive Houses, Minergie and CfS... Oops forget that last one, we might make serious inroads.

We could switch over to heat pumps and things like that whereby the achievable CoP should help reduce the energy 'demand' from whatever grid.

Add in a lot of hope, pixie dust and the odd prayer and we can have the whole North Sea full of very large Turbines producing hydrogen in 20 years.

Indeed and this is part of the problem it's so much hope on a scale that makes religious groups look like amateurs.  tomatosplat

We still have the perennial problem of storage of energy, you'll have noticed we produce about 450TWh of that requirement. The vast majority of demand is in the winter months as for Gas storage according to Lord Henley:-

"The UK currently has a total gas storage capacity of 2.5 billion cubic metres (bcm), in the form of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) stored at terminals (1.2bcm) and gas stored underground (1.3bcm)[1].
Based on the average daily demand (209 million cubic metres/day)1, the UKs total gas storage capacity is equivalent to 12 days of average demand (6 days from LNG stocks, and 6 days from underground storage)."

So from what I can find online with a quick search you get 10.55KWh per cubic meter* so we have 26.375TWh of storage in the UK

*https://www.calculat.org/en/energy-fuel/gas-consumption.html

So considering the storage requirements are a laugh as we need most of it in a short'ish space of time and we are theoretically producing this 'Gas' annualised, we are also using hope figures for efficiencies etc then like so many of the ideas  flyingpig

We also don't know what would happen planting 10,000 very large turbines in the North Sea would have, in terms of materials consumed and infrastructure needed and any environmental effects of energy being extracted from the wind on that scale and ecologically of that much floating infrastructure.

Even after all that, which is basically still fail we've still got electricity consumption, electricity storage and we haven't touched transport with a barge pole.

Probably why I though https://www.withouthotair.com/ was a decent read.
Logged
oliver90owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002


« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2019, 02:07:02 AM »

Further, your area calculation is flawed (or even floored ie knocked out) You actually doubled the separation by taking each turbine separately.

I dont know about the area spacing due to distance between rows of turbines but on a linear basis you can virtually halve the distance.  If the same is true between rows or tiers, your error would be closer to a factor of four, perhaps exceeding that figure.  You already have a considerable over-estimate of numbers of potential turbines needed.  Just plotting the turbine output increases over the last umpteen years may give a much larger projected unit size in another couple of decades.

You forget that generation will increase closer to shore.  You simplify by quoting annual figures without considering storage but quote current storage capacity, which could easily be vastly increase.  Your figure of 10.5kWh per cubic meter is not quite appropriate for liquified gaseous fuels.  You don't consider heating requirements of better insulated dwellings in a climate-changed environment.  There may be a lot of other factors to take into account.  Forgetting the possibility of enhanced nuclear?  Forgetting other sources of distributed power from other international sources. Ignoring everything else is not the way to computer -model our future energy needs, for sure.

I would definitely not discount their findings just on your fag-packet calculations, even if they are being optimistic with their assumptions.  It is somewhat more complex than that.
Logged
ewaste
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2019, 05:42:35 AM »

Ah indeed area back of fag packet maths is well out even by a factor of 4 that's alright we are only talking 1/4 the size of Scotland or 21382.465 km2 feel free to check the math happily corrected.

Edit:-120GW is about 190 London Arrays in capacity which has an area of 122km2 so about 23,238'ish km2 so I think we save about 9% in area going from 3.6MW turbines to 12MW turbines?

Turbine output increases are a hope driven metric and sure we can try and extrapolate out some numbers, the article mentioned they were thinking of 15MW turbines. I think it would be highly optimistic to think the trend will continue since the Haliade-X is already has a hub height of 135m and a tip height of 245m and this is a turbine that is not yet assembled or started testing. Compare to other large man made structures e.g. Eiffel Tower, London Eye for the usual infographics we see a lot of on the internet.

Generation will increase closer to shore ok but we've already assumed a highly optimistic capacity factor on our fag packet maths, feel free to run some numbers as well. I simplify showing annual figures to show the best case that if the turbines sustained peak capacity factor year round we'd have our best case TWh production numbers.

Do you have better figures for the energy density of liquified gaseous fuels? I used a quick google for the number of kWh's per cubic meter of natural gas and even posted where I found it becuase if anything it sounds high. Furthermore the quote from Lord Henley is for regasifed LNG capacity not liquified LNG capacity, liquification reduces the volume by around 600-700 times compared to it's gaseous state. Storage could indeed increase with facilities like the Rough terminal being created from old natural gas fields, arguably one of the reasons power-to-gas is an option is even worth considering.

Dwelling efficiency, the track record on that and even new build performance in reality vs performance on paper is a mess. Even if you somehow drag the building trade into the 21st century and build houses meeting any of the standards I mentioned then you still have the existing housing stock, much of which is privately owned. If politicians start trying stick their oar in by relating council tax to energy efficiency or keep energy prices on an upward trajectory outpacing inflation they'll find some increasing strong headwinds. We also have an increasing population and increases in efficiency have tended to be swallowed by increasing our thermostats or finding some other way to keep using the same or more energy.

So even managing to keep demand static would take some doing, as mentioned hopefully it's more probable that we see demand decrease as time passes and the changes everyone hopes for come to pass.

Basically yes it's back of fag packet math but shows, well at least in my mind, how fanciful some of the ideas are especially considering breaking atoms apart is heresy and ideally we'd do without.



« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 05:56:39 AM by ewaste » Logged
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2958


« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2019, 11:22:52 AM »

there is forgetting a little word net as in "net zero 2050" which means no one is aiming for zero gas total. Our use of gas is declining quite fast and will continue to do so as we still have a way to go with new boilers,just the basic insulation, and increasing HP.  The use of HP will largely negate the use of gas for heating and be replaced with RE leccy.  RE leccy can be produced at times of excess and stored in EVs, hydrogen, heating (as in thermal mass of buildings) a process that will be controlled by time of use tariffs and domestic batts/V2G.

The remaining question is can we produce enough RE leccy and on this i do not think we have even started yet. We are aiming for 30GW offshore wind and this could be replicated by onshore wind particularly on the Scottish Islands and Highlands. Then we have PV which must be almost limitless if you consider the roof areas available.

So do we need nuclear or gas, not really as now we have the tech not to but Rome was not built in a day but i have no doubt we will get there.

Ken
Logged
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002


« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2019, 11:56:09 AM »

I think any project like this at some point has someone point out the overreaching of the design. For this one, it is going to be the idea of having 1,000s of small electrolysis plants placed in distant hostile conditions then needs a complex high-pressure gas network to deliver the output. The results then end up being the lowest 'value' form of energy in the market place.

The result will be that the turbines will be simplified to just produce electricity, which can then be used on-shore for whatever makes sense at the time.


The whole idea seems to be based on the idea of having alternative options for the North Sea so that there is some form of competition. But they indicate that they expect to be producing hydrogen at 35 per MWh by the 'early 2030s', the latest round of Offshore wind farm auctions are due next week for 2025 generation and estimates are that these could come in at less than 49 per MWh. I wonder what contract prices will look like by the 'early 2030s' for plain old electricity from simple old wind turbines which do not have any other complex equipment in them.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 12:18:53 PM by RIT » Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Philip R
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436


« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2019, 12:03:56 PM »

RIT
35 to 49 per MW for installed capacity? That is an incredibly cheap price for installed capacity. Do you mean per MWh for the energy produced?
Philip R.
Logged
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002


« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2019, 12:18:15 PM »

RIT
35 to 49 per MW for installed capacity? That is an incredibly cheap price for installed capacity. Do you mean per MWh for the energy produced?
Philip R.

Yep, modified, thanks.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 12:24:35 PM by RIT » Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!