Longlines said..




Interesting to have your view on things. The thread here is, let us say, wide ranging.

My start position is that any new technology takes time to be sorted. EVs are a case in point. With offshore wind farms I don't know whether they still qualify as an infant technology or not. I seem to remember that some of the early ones are being retired? Is that more to do with the maritime environment or is it just what they do?

I see no point in arguing about climate change. The insurance underwriters have already factored it into their premiums. We could argue that they are just going with peoples beliefs. But more likely as world populations grow, our exposure as humans also grows. Although we do have more data than any time in history, so we should be able to dodge those bullets.

So a question then is once say wind turbines are set off shore, is that a situation we can retrieve at reasonable cost if later we come up with better solutions for our energy. We have to anyway because there are more of us and we run on electricity.

It the above seems like a ramble, it is because it is a ramble. There are no definite answers, just uncertainty to manage.

Going back to off shore wind turbines, that management includes I would think of whole of life costing. Including decommissioning. The offshore oil and gas industry would have a lot of experience on which we can draw?

Pcdefender said..
Anti-wind circle unbroken: Taylor steps up, Schultz joins Waubra | RenewEconomy

Brampk8 said..




yeah, I ll leave the wide ranging discussion to others. Happy to answer your question,

Offshore wind turbines aren't really an infant technology in the global context. In the early 2000's it was new and the turbines back then were designed for a lifetime of 20 years. Nowadays, turbines are designed for 30 years or more. It s an engineering (and economic) trade off.

Developers are obliged to address the decommissioning phase in their plans and economics. Indeed, it draws on the exprience in the oil and gas industry and the offshore wind industry itself. In many countries, everything above the seabed + the burried cabling needs to be removed at expiration of the license/permit. That's certainly possible and the projects would, towards the later phase in the operational life, be obliged to reserve the funds to perform that work when the operational phase ends.

remery said..

That's true, there is little chance of runaway climate change turning the Earth into a barren rock supporting no life. But what about the environment our great-grandchildren will be faced with?

Brampk8 said..
Offshore wind turbines aren't really an infant technology in the global context. In the early 2000's it was new and the turbines back then were designed for a lifetime of 20 years. Nowadays, turbines are designed for 30 years or more. It s an engineering (and economic) trade off.

Developers are obliged to address the decommissioning phase in their plans and economics. Indeed, it draws on the exprience in the oil and gas industry and the offshore wind industry itself. In many countries, everything above the seabed + the burried cabling needs to be removed at expiration of the license/permit. That's certainly possible and the projects would, towards the later phase in the operational life, be obliged to reserve the funds to perform that work when the operational phase ends.

stehsegler said..






That's why batteries are an interim solution. The future will be with green hydrogen. The problem with hydrogen in the past has been the energy required to produce it. With renewable energy production having become relatively cheap this problem has been pretty much solved.

The other issue with hydrogen is how unstable it is at normal temperatures. This problem has now been solved as well...
Hydrogenious LOHC Technologies in Germany has developed a method were hydrogen is bound to an oil carrier making it stable at normal temperatures. To split the two the mixture is heated to 400 degrees. The oil is captured and reused. The hydrogen can be used in either a modified combustion engine or power plant.

ned321 said..
Problem with green hydrogen is conversion loss.
Take a look at the hydrogen ladder by Liebreich.

philn said..
And. .I went windsurfing instead of reading the last 7 pages.

Rango said..
www.sciencealert.com/pacific-island-nation-expected-to-sink-is-getting-bigger

Except most are not ,Albo took the bait and handed over the money.

Rango said..
www.sciencealert.com/pacific-island-nation-expected-to-sink-is-getting-bigger

Except most are not ,Albo took the bait and handed over the money.

remery said..


From the journal article...
"Climate change remains one of the single greatest environmental threats to the livelihood and well-being of the peoples of
the Pacific."

www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

elk said..
When you look at history, those that love power and control have always used fear as a means of dominating and controlling others, it's no different today, the global elites, The World Economic Forum and the UN are all getting filthy rich from this new green religion, and the mainstream media are fueling the hysteria. Australia produces less than one percent of the world's CO2 emissions and if we want to net zero tomorrow it would make no difference to the global temperatures what so ever. Albanese and Bowen are virtue signalling to the world how great they are for reducing Australia's ridiculously small amount of emissions while sending our economy broke, Labor use to be for the middle to lower class workers but now they have joined up with the greens who demonise fossil fuel and cause the price of everything to go up.

elk said..
The World Economic Forum and the UN are all getting filthy rich from this new green religion

Rango said..
www.sciencealert.com/pacific-island-nation-expected-to-sink-is-getting-bigger

Except most are not ,Albo took the bait and handed over the money.

Chris 249 said..




As others have noted, you are being misleading. The article clearly says that the sea level is rising and that the outcome of the study "does not negate the need to still vigorously support ongoing mitigation action to curtail future sea level impacts and climatic changes on small island nations."

So you are implying that the study says the opposite of what it actually says. Why did you write a misleading post?