ian rush Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 You’ve cracked this consultancy lark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha-acid Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 2 hours ago, Cambon said: Or, just have one massive turbine offshore, which would produce more power than the 5 or 10 put together. Put it off Peel and link into the Peel power station. That would cost even more money and the things don't scale that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 34 minutes ago, alpha-acid said: That would cost even more money and the things don't scale that way Cost and time of planning and installation would be minimal by comparison to either of the proposed sites. That would balance it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 3 hours ago, Cambon said: Or, just have one massive turbine offshore, which would produce more power than the 5 or 10 put together. Put it off Peel and link into the Peel power station. No it wouldn't, no it wouldn't and that would be daft. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 1 hour ago, Cambon said: Cost and time of planning and installation would be minimal by comparison to either of the proposed sites. That would balance it out. Ha Ha. You are funny. But deluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted October 4, 2023 Share Posted October 4, 2023 The expert on all things has spoken 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 8 hours ago, Fred the shred said: The expert on all things has spoken 🤣 I'm not an expert in all things. I do though have some common sense and an ability to type. An offshore turbine at Peel would have to be along way offshore because its would be in the lee of the wind due to the Island. You do not need to be an expert to find out that offshore is very expensive. Just google it https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Offshore-Wind-Energy-DRS-4.pdf Lots of info Thanks Non expert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I'm not an expert in all things. I do though have some common sense and an ability to type. An offshore turbine at Peel would have to be along way offshore because its would be in the lee of the wind due to the Island. You do not need to be an expert to find out that offshore is very expensive. Just google it https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Offshore-Wind-Energy-DRS-4.pdf Lots of info Thanks Non expert Almost completely wrong. The only time a turbine off Peel would be in the lee would be from an easterly wind, which is not the prevailing direction, and have a tendency to be low. Prevailing wind is southwesterly and strong. Therefore, the turbine could be located just around the corner of Peel hill, where the scallop shells get dumped, a couple of hundred metres offshore, virtually out of sight, minimal cabling to the power station, relatively easy access for maintenance, win win. Unfettered wind 90% or the time. As for Scard, the turbines will be in the lee of the hill to the southwest. The idea is bonkers! However, since they completely resurfaced the road up from Gawnes Folly, we can assume the decision has been made. Edited October 5, 2023 by Cambon 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cambon said: Almost completely wrong. The only time a turbine off Peel would be in the lee would be from an easterly wind, which is not the prevailing direction, and have a tendency to be low. Prevailing wind is southwesterly and strong. Therefore, the turbine could be located just around the corner of Peel hill, where the scallop shells get dumped, a couple of hundred metres offshore, virtually out of sight, minimal cabling to the power station, relatively easy access for maintenance, win win. Unfettered wind 90% or the time. As for Scard, the turbines will be in the lee of the hill to the southwest. The idea is bonkers! However, since they completely resurfaced the road up from Gawnes Folly, we can assume the decision has been made. Does anywhere else in the world rely on one single massive offshore turbine? A 20MW turbine doesn't exist yet, although admittedly they seem to being explored at the moment and appear to the maximum possible theoretical size using current technology albeit still commercially unviable. Earystane = 5 x 5MW turbines which will be 150m - 200m tall. Druidale = 10 x 2MW turbines at 100m. A 20MW turbine would likely have to be around 350m tall (the height of the Eiffel Tower) and have blades that cover the area of approximately 10 football fields. So it is 100% unviable. Also taking into account the redundancy factor and maintenance/construction infrastructure that would be required for one single giant offshore turbine. Ships don't even exist that are big enough to carry one of the blades that would be required for such a structure. On calm days, maybe it could turn upsidedown and convert the tidal power? Or maybe on its side and we could have some tame seals push it round like Conan the Barbarian? Back to geothermal? Edited October 5, 2023 by The Phantom 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: I'm not an expert in all things. I do though have some common sense and an ability to type. An offshore turbine at Peel would have to be along way offshore because its would be in the lee of the wind due to the Island. You do not need to be an expert to find out that offshore is very expensive. Just google it https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Offshore-Wind-Energy-DRS-4.pdf Lots of info Thanks Non expert The size it would have to be, the lee of the Island would make no difference. Peel Hill is only 150m. It would be at least double the height. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 56 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Does anywhere else in the world rely on one single massive offshore turbine? A 20MW turbine doesn't exist yet, although admittedly they seem to being explored at the moment and appear to the maximum possible theoretical size using current technology albeit still commercially unviable. Earystane = 5 x 5MW turbines which will be 150m - 200m tall. Druidale = 10 x 2MW turbines at 100m. A 20MW turbine would likely have to be around 350m tall (the height of the Eiffel Tower) and have blades that cover the area of approximately 10 football fields. So it is 100% unviable. Also taking into account the redundancy factor and maintenance/construction infrastructure that would be required for one single giant offshore turbine. Ships don't even exist that are big enough to carry one of the blades that would be required for such a structure. On calm days, maybe it could turn upsidedown and convert the tidal power? Or maybe on its side and we could have some tame seals push it round like Conan the Barbarian? Back to geothermal? No, nobody relies upon one single source, and we would still have other multiple sources to call on for backup. At the end of the day, this expensive, barking idea of onshore wind is going to bankrupt the island for no gain. There are cheaper, better alternatives, such as the interconnections where we can take advantage of green electricity that we have already contributed towards. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Cambon said: No, nobody relies upon one single source, and we would still have other multiple sources to call on for backup. At the end of the day, this expensive, barking idea of onshore wind is going to bankrupt the island for no gain. There are cheaper, better alternatives, such as the interconnections where we can take advantage of green electricity that we have already contributed towards. Offshore would bankrupt us sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 29 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Offshore would bankrupt us sooner. Wind turbines, wherever they are put will bankrupt us. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Cambon said: Wind turbines, wherever they are put will bankrupt us. Lot cheaper than offshore, why do you think no energy companies bid for licenses to install wind in uk waters recently? Answer because they would lose loads of money!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted October 5, 2023 Share Posted October 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, Banker said: Lot cheaper than offshore, why do you think no energy companies bid for licenses to install wind in uk waters recently? Answer because they would lose loads of money!! Correct. No more UK subsidies. Iom has pretty much missed out on leasing the local seabed. I am sure they will continue wasting time and money debating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.