8 ms·
Only 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance https://www.waterp
by barbegal 1y ago
Only 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/sae-secures-loan-for-turbine-redeployment-at-meygen-9599438/ https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/sae-secures-loan-for...
It's a nice idea but costly compared to solar even in places like Scotland.
- dietr1ch 1y agoWell, they just need to use just the ones that don't require maintenance.
- KolibriFly 1y agoEven that one proves it's possible, which is huge for an industry that's been stuck in pilot mode for years
- walrus01 1y agoOver many years, I've yet to hear of an ocean based power generating system that comes anywhere near the $ per kWh cost produced by just covering some less-useful land in ground mount photovoltaics. Private, entirely for profit companies, have recently answered large government tenders in the middle east to sell power at the equivalent of $0.05 USD per kWh. They are fairly confident that they can make a profit doing this, even with the cost to incur the long term debt to privately build a massive solar power plant. The cumulative amount of solar power being produced within Germany right now is a good example of its practical use in a less sunny climate. In terms of placing things in the ocean, hiring the sort of offshore work vessel with a built-in crane can go and place or remove multi ton apparatus is very costly. Maritime construction for things like laying coastal submarine cable, building piers and docks and marinas, setting and maintaining marker buoys isn't cheap. Laying and maintaining HV AC or DC submarine cables in salt water is also particularly known to be expensive. Hiring a 36'-42' aluminum landing craft for coastal construction projects, with fuel and crew can be easily $500 an hour. Labor and vehicle costs are greatly increased compared to doing things on dry land.
- gleenn 1y agoI think the charm for a cloudy place like Scotland is that a system like this is unaffected by poor light supply. Your photovoltaics aren't going to fair nearly so well there hence this solution.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago> covering some less-useful land in ground mount photovoltaics. Doesn't even need to be less-useful land (especially in western Europe, ground is becoming a scarce resource), put PV on flat rooves or add them over open car parks. Also helps alleviate pressure on the overstressed energy grid by generating and using power more locally. But, local power is (overall) a lot more costly than major centralized power generation projects, like a wind farm or what have you.
- mrspuratic 1y agoIronically, renewables tend to put a different kind of stress on the grid: frequency. In Ireland the grid can't handle windy days, so there are ROCOF issues and "dispatch down" events which means clean energy is lost.
- mnahkies 1y agoI'd expect storage/batteries can help smooth this out by providing shiftable demand/production (with the right local control software running on/near the inverter) Eg: https://www.next-kraftwerke.be/knowledge-hub/balancing-markets https://www.next-kraftwerke.be/knowledge-hub/balancing-marke... Not sure if this is prominent in the Irish market or not
- 542354234235 1y agoI used to think the same way, “just use cheaper solar” but I have come around to see the value. Doing science and engineering projects to explore new or different alternatives is valuable. We might find something surprising. Having different types of power generation provides redundancy. The wind still blows at night, the tide still comes in and out when its cloudy, etc. Grid storage is nowhere near a solved problem, so something like tidal could prove less expensive than storage or overbuilding alternatives to overcome their variability problems. Even if it doesn’t end up being widely useful, it could still end up finding a use in more niche applications. Finally, it can and will improve. 30 years ago, solar was not price competitive and decades of development and iterative improvements have changed that. We should keep developing alternatives to see their full potential.
- badestrand 1y agoI would love to see a complete cost comparison with solar. 1.5 MW is nothing to scoff at, so if it costs a bit in maintenance that's okay. But overall costs would be great to know.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- padjo 1y agoOne benefit that’s difficult to quantify is that the power is extremely predictable compared to other renewables.
- danans 1y agoIt can be quantified by comparing it to the cost of solar or wind plus storage.
- padjo 1y agoIt’s not straightforward though is it. It depends on your base load profile, your ability to time shift loads, what level of modal and geographic aggregation you have etc. i.e. not something you can just stick into an LCOE calculation and call it a day.
- danans 1y ago> It’s not straightforward though is it. Sure, there are many parameters to consider, but it's the kind of thing energy analysts do all the time.
- theptip 1y agoAlso there is theoretically power in the GW range to be harvested here (specifically, Scotland’s tidal flows), so it’s worth investing a substantial sum to figure this tech out.
- mlyons1340 1y ago
- terribleperson 1y agoIf one made it six years, it seems like it should eventually be possible to build turbines that reliably make it that long.
- micromacrofoot 1y agoYes, 1 success out of 4 test flights — good news, it's possible!
- soperj 1y agoSo exact same results as the falcon 1. Seems like they did okay with the Falcon 9.
- contravariant 1y agoThat's like saying if I roll 4 dice and one of them lands on a six then it should be possible to make one that only rolls sixes.
- neuroelectron 1y agoAbsolutely but instead of balanced cubes they're experimental turbines.
- alt227 1y agoYes exactly, see 'Loaded Dice'. If you made 4 loaded dice and continuously rolled them for 6 years and 1 of them consistently rolled a 6 everytime then yes, it is entirely possible.
- smcl 1y agoVery nicely handled! I am really puzzled why people here are so against this. There's potentially really good news for a plentiful and predictable source of renewable energy with some fairly cool tech and a bunch of HNers are angry? I don't get it.
- Havoc 1y agoThat's useless for commercial operation, but for a trial run perhaps not terrible. If 1/4 make it then you at least know it can be done and hopefully learned a couple key failure modes from it
- Goronmon 1y agoOnly 1 of the four turbines has been able to operate for 6 years without pulling it out the water. The other 3 have needed costly maintenance As opposed to other forms of energy production which have free/zero maintenance?
- insane_dreamer 1y ago> costly maintenance all systems require maintenance, so "costly" is relative; would need more specifics to determine whether this is a cost effective solution or not
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- magicalhippo 1y agoThis[1] article states the following: To remind, the MeyGen project’s Phase 1A involved the installation of the AR1500 onto a gravity-based foundation, alongside three other AH1000 MK1 turbines, to form an array of 6MW. From what I've found, the AR1500 has just had routine quarter-life maintenance[2], but I can't find anything concrete right now which of the four made the 6 year milestone. I do note that in the brochure[3] for the AR1500 they claim three service intervals every 6 1/4 years, rather than four service intervals as indicated by the article. [1]: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/simec-atlantis-troubleshooting-redeployment-ops-for-meygen-tidal-turbines/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/simec-atlantis-troubleshooti... [2]: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-to-be-redeployed-in-single-offshore-operation/ https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-t... [3]: https://simecatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AR1500-Brochure-Final-1.pdf https://simecatlantis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AR1500-...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- varispeed 1y agoImagine if we gave up making cars because we had some failures initially. Everything is costly in the beginning.
- asdff 1y agoI assume corrosion is to blame? Crazy how much ocean facing stuff is still done with painted steel. You'd think aluminum and carbon fiber or even plastic would be making strides but it's still the iron age in many ways it seems.
- Someone 1y agoCorrosion, the force of water (being 800 times as dense as air and effectively incompressible, water forces can be huge), objects in the water (again, water being heavy it can move heavy objects around in its flow), fouling through, for example, algae and mussels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouling)
- zikzak 1y agoAll industrial generators undergo regular shutdowns for maintenance and recalibration. This is costly and time consuming when they are on land. Also, I am thinking about all the ocean factors beyond salt corrosion. There's tons of crap in the water beyond salt and minerals. Like fine grit suspended in it. Plus the tidal forces etc.
- ReaperCub 1y agoSteel has the benefit of fatigue limit. Which means as long as the cyclic stress on steel is under a certain amount it won't fail. Aluminium has a much lower fatigue strength than steel and will always fail given enough cycles. While rust can be a problem it can be mitigated. Also steel is easier to repair than many other materials (welding). BTW. Aluminium does suffer from corrosion as well. I used to have racing bike, the wheel nipples (these connect the spokes to the wheel rim) used to corrode to the point where they would fail, which meant I would end up with a buckle. I ended up having both wheel rebuilt with higher quality brass nipples. Plastics under time also suffers from a different set of issues. Plastics can become brittle. Anyone working on old computers (especially macs) can attest to this.
- spandrew 1y agoCarbon fibres tend to crack under extreme torque.
- 1y ago
- os2warpman 1y agoI'm not a turbine, or power generation, expert but I am almost 100% sure that no non-solar power generation method can operate without being taken down periodically for maintenance. How do the maintenance costs (and intervals) of these compare to gas/steam turbines?