Wind Turbines

[Witness]

Wind and solar are 30-50% cheaper than thought, admits UK government

Electricity generated from wind and solar is 30-50% cheaper than previously thought, according to newly published UK government figures.

The new estimates of the “levelised cost” of electricity, published this week by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), show that renewables are much cheaper than expected in the previous iteration of the report, published in 2016.

The previously published version had, in turn, already trimmed the cost of wind and solar by up to 30%. As a result, electricity from onshore wind or solar could be supplied in 2025 at half the cost of gas-fired power, the new estimates suggest.

The new report is the government’s first public admission of the dramatic reductions in renewable costs in recent years. It had previously carried out internal updates to its cost estimates, in both 2018 and 2019, but these were never published despite repeated questions in parliament.

The BEIS report also presents new estimates of the “enhanced levelised cost” of different technologies, which reflects any wider system benefits and their “system integration costs”.

These alternative figures, which have been under development for several years, put gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in a particularly favourable light, with costs comparable to wind or solar. CCS is expected to feature in the upcoming energy white paper, due this autumn.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-so ... government

[sparks]

What is this "levelised cost" of which they speak.

[Witness]

What is this "levelised cost" of which they speak.

It's in the rest of the article.

[sparks]

Nobody likes a wise guy Witness.

[Witness]

Nobody likes a wise guy Witness.

I thought I showed some restraint…

---

History of Wind Turbines

[sparks]

Indeed you did. I didn't have time to read it. (Working for a living is overrated.)

[Witness]

(Working for a living is overrated.)

You don't say so.

[Witness]

BP enters offshore wind with $1.1 billion U.S. investment

BP, the oil giant that announced a seismic strategy shift last month, made its first venture into offshore wind power with a $1.1 billion purchase of U.S. assets from Norway’s Equinor ASA.

The deal marks the start of an offshore-wind investment partnership in the region for the two companies, which have been at the forefront of the rapid changes in the oil industry as companies seek to adapt to the realities of climate change.

BP has taken the boldest steps so far in abandoning the oil-supermajor business model. Just six months after taking the helm, CEO Bernard Looney said in August he’d shrink oil and gas output by 40% over the next decade and spend as much as $5 billion a year building one of the world’s largest renewable-power businesses.

BP will receive a 50% stake in the Empire Wind and Beacon Wind developments off New York and Massachusetts, respectively, the companies said in two separate statements on Thursday. Equinor will retain 50% in both, and continue to be the operator.

Empire Wind, whose first phase could start in 2024-25, has a potential installed capacity of more than 2 gigawatts, and Beacon Wind more than 2.4 gigawatts. Together they’ll be able to power more than 2 million homes. Equinor earlier estimated total investments in Empire Wind’s first phase at about $3 billion.

Future Cooperation

The companies plan to participate in more offshore wind projects in the U.S., bringing together their significant balance sheets and experience of handling large projects.

“Our ambition would be to replicate this across the U.S.,” Dev Sanyal, executive vice president for gas and low-carbon energy at BP, said in an interview. “States are going through their own process of looking at the offshore wind sector, and as offshore leases come available both of us would like to be a part of that.”

Norway’s state-controlled Equinor has so far been the most aggressive oil major in offshore wind, seeking to capitalize on its experience in operating big industrial projects at sea. It’s now reaping the rewards of its early-mover status, expecting to book a $1 billion gain from the BP transaction.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/9/10 ... investment

[Witness]

[Witness]

Not directly wind turbines, but I'll put it here:

Airbus reveals plan for first-ever ‘zero emission commercial planes’, potentially by 2035

The company says that the ZEROe concepts are a ‘historic moment’ for the aviation sector



Aerospace company Airbus announced on Monday that its first zero-emission, hydrogen-powered commercial flight may be ready for take-off by 2035.

It was dubbed a “historic moment” for the commercial aviation sector by the company’s CEO Guillaume Faury.

Called ZEROe, there are three design concepts. The first is a lot like a typical commercial aircraft you would see today, except with longer, more flexible wings.

The second resembles a turboprop plane with six-bladed propellers. The third is the most futuristic, with a “blended-wing body". But the real game-changer is the fuel source: hydrogen propulsion.

In a statement, Glenn Llewellyn, Airbus VP, Zero-Emission Aircraft, said: “As recently as five years ago, hydrogen propulsion wasn’t even on our radar as a viable emission-reduction technology pathway.

“But convincing data from other transport industries quickly changed all that. Today, we’re excited by the incredible potential hydrogen offers aviation in terms of disruptive emissions reduction."

...

Airbus estimates hydrogen has the potential to reduce aviation’s carbon emissions by up to 50 per cent.

The company said the turbofan design had the potential to transport up to 200 passengers more than 2,000 miles. The turboprop plane could carry half as many, half the distance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 17838.html

We'll see.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Where do they get the hydrogen?

From methane perhaps?

[sparks]

By burning coal or oil to crack water. Zero emission my bony butt.

[Rob Lister]

Or nukes, or wind, or solar. I'm not a fan of hydrogen power for cars but it could work for aviation. For sure, crashes will be more exciting.

[ed]

H2O ----> H2 + O2

What is the (unexpected) consequence of dumping large amounts of O2 into the atmosphere? "More and faster oxidation" ... ok, thanks Mr. Wizard.

What else?

Bigger expositions when H2 aircraft crash perhaps?