It floats the same way a ship does - a metal container filled with air and ballast. They used iron ore, which is about twice as dense as regular rock. That ensures the bottom of the container stays down. The rest is air, which provides the buoyancy to float. The three suction anchors keep it from drifting sideways. Those are open-bottom cylinders which are driven into the sea floor by sucking the water out of them. The water pressure above forces them down into the mud or sand.
No, wrong. This is Big Oil at its worst, Bait-and-Switch scams and sucker traps to get people to embrace Big Oil's energy plan = 80% NG/20% wind/solar. Yep, that will work.
The renewables pixie power fantasy has already failed. 20 yrs now our governments have been pushing wind/solar/efficiency. Since that all started at Kyoto, Japan in 1997, emissions have increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs. Some success that was. They've already blown over $2 trillion on wind and solar with zero results. A recent analysis of the success of decarbonization efforts for electricity generation over the past 63 yrs have shown that Nuclear and Hydro both worked and were very successful. Hydro being severely limited by geography. While wind and solar has been a dismal failure, showing no correlation between wind & solar penetration and the carbon intensity of electricity generation ( gms CO2 eq emitted per kwh generated). This of course is all due to the terrible problems of wind & solar electricity generation. ua-cam.com/video/v1f4BKsFrCA/v-deo.html James Hansen & Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?
huyked Falling wind and solar costs are set to spur even greater investment in renewable technologies. Goldman Sachs Research’s Alberto Gandolfi forecasts that by 2023, renewables will be able to operate without government subsidies. From there, Gandolfi expects wind and solar deployment to accelerate, reaching $3 trillion over the next 20 years. www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/alberto-gandolfi-wind-and-solar-boom.html?mediaIndex=1&autoPlay=true&cid=sch-pd-google-windandsolarboom-searchad-201707--&mkwid=U91OTWID
Brilliant promo movie. Must have been made by a top PR firm or a firm deserving to be a top PR firm. The shots, words, voices and everything about it moves the viewer profoundly. Of course the story is a good one but it's all in the telling.
Great work Scotland. Proud to say Australia has also just installed the largest battery farm in the world at 100mwh from the legendary Tesla. Be good to see these turbines hooked up to batteries.
Yeah but Australia is also completely corrupted by the coal industry. Remind me how many tons of waste were just approved to be dumped on the Great Barrier Reef?
Ady - you have been brainwashed by the Green Left. Wake up. UN socialists want $US2.5 trillion EVERY year to give to 3rd world. This is wealth transfer NOT "action on climate emergency" They could use this money to build nuclear but UN hate nuclear & hydro (the only feasible renewables)
While battery storage is hugely important for getting to net zero. The cobalt and lithium mining required for the raw materials to make Tesla batteries are ecologically devastating. Fortunately there are hundreds of other ways to store energy. Pumped underwater air storage batteries, heated sand batteries, co2 ( closed loop, none escapes the system). Resivour batteries, gravity batteries, flywheel batteries, etc.
this is amazing structural/hydrodynamics engineering principle deployed for future brought present in green energy generation. kudos to Scot in pioneering the cutting-edge modern engineering in green energy power-generation.
+jack frost Your comment is a hot mess. I think you were saying that in Cape Cod Massachusetts in the USA, an oil tycoon convinced people to complain about noise.
+jack frost Dude, your comment made almost no sense. Did you read it? I wasn't commenting on the message itself, because I have no idea if that's true or false. But thanks for the name-calling. Maybe try posting sober next time. This is what you wrote: "Still uses oil beautiful its a start better than in Merica in cape cose ma a oil typhoon lives there and convinced drooling Neanderthals to complian about noise and it being a sore site for offshore wind Reply" PS. I was born on the cape and raised in MA.
What I love about wind turbines is that it is possible to take one production process and repeat it again and again to scale up - so you have a chance to get better and better at making them which isn't possible when working with large power stations where you're only making one very large system. Also if you have X money you can scale the number of turbines you build to fit it and that doesn't prevent you from adding more in future. etc.
Blades are made of steel, fibreglass, copper, iron & plastic - they also don't last forever and kill millions of birds & bats, cause health problems for humans ...and is hugely expensive (without subsidies) and inefficient (only work when wind blows). They also always need backup ie baseload power from coal/other. At best wind & solar "renewables" are adjuncts NOT replacements for fossil fuels. If UN were serious about CO2 "crisis" they would back nuclear & hydro not wind & solar. It's about wealth transfer not climate change.
Fantastic! Wish I could have been part of something so wonderful and good for our planet. I hope this shows other big oil companies what needs to be done - change from "big oil" to "big wind or solar" Cheers
Patrick - wind & solar are adjuncts only. They will never replace biofuels, nuclear or hydro because they always need baseload (back up) & are hugely expensive without gov subsidies. Interesting that UN back the unreliable, expensive wind & solar but not nuclear or hydro which are real substitutes for fossil fuels. UN also want $US2.5 trillion EVERY year from the West to give to poor countries. This is wealth transfer NOT "fighting climate change" It's a rort. CO2 is not a problem for humans or the planet. Globalists want control over the rich West. They want communism for the West while they remain mega rich.
This wind turbine industry is built only to provide extreme revenue to already rich companies. At the bottom of the priority list is the consideration for nature. This industry has spent a lot of time and money looking like green energy. They also rightly use it as perpetual energy. Windmill energy can certainly be green energy but then in only certain conditions. It is that the energy is used in the area it is produced. The condition is that it should not be transported on high-voltage lines in the air voltage and that necessary transformers are far away from areas where people live. Current with 50 hz / possibly 60 hz AC creates, as known, environmentally harmful conditions for animals and humans. Many feel great discomfort with magnetic fields, and many suffer from a number of diseases including blood cancer. Today, this company Equinor (formerly Statoil) is a world-renowned company for the sale of oil, energy and more. And they are like all other such companies a devastating factor for nature on land and at sea. Equinor is a Norwegian company and aims to sell energy to a number of European countries. To achieve this goal, Equinor does not care that nature is being destroyed.
The best thing I like about this is that Statoil is OIL and they are moving to be the floating turbine leader. The skills oil companies have in 'deep water' for oil production have so much potential to make floating wind a giant resource in the world. The oil development companies don't have to go away, just change paths. It will be impossible for most but the amount of energy that is needed from renewables is way more than that will be pumped out of the ground. ~Good luck Statoil.
Finland is home to the world's first commercial-scale sand battery. It uses sand rejected by builders. A new way of storing renewable energy is providing clean heat through the long Nordic nights. The battery consists of 100 tonnes of low-grade builders' sand, two district heating pipes and a fan. The sand becomes a battery after it is heated up to 600C using electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels.
Great to see Scotland as a world leader in wind turbine innovation. Dragging the UK into the 21st century My country England still plugging away with old nuclear Power stations.
LOL England has quite a few in the top ten of the Worlds largest Wind Farms which have been producing more energy than nuclear for a while now, the UK has been leading the world in offshore wind energy so dont think Scotland is particularly dragging anyone in this regard. I find it strange someone can suddenly find a youtube video on a floating wind turbine and feel confident to make a statement about UK energy production and not have had any other interest in all the other videos out there on UK offshore wind sites in the last 10 years. Great to see more innovation but not the ignorant trolling.
felicitaciones!, los admiro, como investigador también tengo el sueño de que en Colombia se instalen este tipo de turbinas. Cuenten con un colaborador en Colombia. Att Juan Gabriel Rueda Bayona
Amazing that people actually think 400 year old tech is the answer for us. These turbines are very expensive to maintain. Every country that has switched to wind and solar has seen very steep increases in utility prices. This is hurting the old and poor the most.
A truly great achievement, just a bit puzzled as to why ,with our history of building floating production platforms for the major oil and gas companies,we couldn’t have built all of these in Scotland?.
What "we"? Why would a Norwegian company build it in Scotland though? The idea and technology wasn't invented by Scots, so you don't reap the benefits.
Very cool. Regardless of the cost/benefits it's cool to be alive to see such amazing structures being built by my fellow humans. Many of the negative comments below are directed at the energy for construction versus energy produced. None of the negative comments I saw offered any kind of documentation or references to studies. The Wikipedia article on wind turbines presents quite a bit of information that refutes most of the criticisms that were put forth in the comments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power From that article: The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. According to a meta study, in which all existing studies from 1977 to 2007 were reviewed, the EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35,[18] with the most common turbines in the range of 2 MW nameplate capacity-rotor diameters of 66 meters, on average the EROI is 16. So EROI (Energy Return on Investment) is 16 on the most common size of windmills and presumably as time goes on that number will climb towards or above the highest EROI's obtained today. This seems to be a complete refutation of one of the most common criticisms made in the comments.
How much carbon print was needed just to get it built and setup? I'd just use a tugboat. That matters if it took 2 years of carbon worth just to set it up then you must make the process even more efficient. That said. I'm glad to see the idea to fruition.
NO NO NO Thats just propognda At best it is 20% of the UKs *RENEWABLE ENERGY" which includes things like biofuels which cause starvation in 3rd world and burning wood chips which is devastating forests in USA.
@@burgesspark685That was an anticipation figure while the infrastructure was being brought online (has been taking 10 years mostly of legal red tape to get one online), no need to be so shrill and to throw back even more absurd platitudes (although I have seen your posts on numerous videos about Wind Power and can only conclude you are an incentivised troll). Just 4 years later and Anyone with a web browser and a brain to do a search can literaly sit and watch the live official electricity generation figures of the UK. I am doing that now and Renewable (Wind, Solar and Hydro-Electric) is accounting for 61.4% of electricity production for the UK today, with Wind being the lions share at 35.9% of the whole of the UKs generation. Biomass is 3.5% oh and by the way not everyone includes Biomass as ahe official definition of renewable, only some dodgy private companies/governments do. In the UK grid burning biomass also comes from incinerating household waste (UK waste is even sent to Norway to incinerate which contributes the electricty back into the UKs national grid). Your "wood pellet" comment is hilarious, you have never heard of the logging industry in North America? You think that North America can not manage that asset? Eitherway its a tiny % of the UKs electricity grid. Your embarrasing "starvation" faux concern is not backed up by any statistics, most of the "food" burnt in UK biomass is UK agricultural waste and unused animal food. For anyone interested the site "grid im kate" google seach provides interesting real time production and consumption, remember the UK energy electrical grid included two-way flows between other countries as well, including France, Ireland and Norway.
@@suburbia2050 what utter garbage you write - except thats an insult to garbage seriously - look around and tell me where all these wind farms that generate the imaginary "61%" of our power are ??? The reality is that London alone needs a wind farm the size of Wales to satisfy its power requirements The current energy crisis has been caused 100% by the uncontrolled and moronic shift to renewable energy sources which are incapable of supplying our needs As for your insults - its typical of left-wing environmentalists to jump on the "incentivised troll" argument whenever anyone disagrees with your lunacy. and you seriously are arguing to burn wood (which emits 4 times the CO2 of coal) 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣 In the second half of the 16th century, Britain plunged into an energy crisis. At the time, the primary source of energy driving the British economy was heat derived from the burning of wood, and Britain was literally running out of trees. As the supply of wood dried up, its price began to soar and inflation set in, compounding the problem and spreading it to all corners of the economy. With imports from continental Europe insufficient to close the growing supply gap, the resulting crisis was dire. And then they discovered coal. Well, they didn’t exactly “discover” coal - it had been known for centuries that coal could be a useful fuel - but they did learn that coal could replace wood in many important applications. They also recognized that they had a lot of it. With a higher energy density than wood, coal is a superior fuel that enabled meaningful improvements in the British economy. Trees could be preserved for construction purposes, homes could be more efficiently heated, and companies could leapfrog their competitors. It is now well understood that the wide adoption of primary fuels with high energy density enables a better standard of living. Transitioning to higher density fuels is something that usually occurs spontaneously in an economy unless politicians interfere. Wood to coal to oil to gas to nuclear. In another example, the history of propulsion technology at sea is marked by a completely sensible journey up the energy density ladder. Wind power gave way to coal, which was displaced by diesel, which ultimately gave way to nuclear technology in military vessels. Given this, it is astounding to learn that the European Union and Britain are incentivizing a return to the primitive concept of burning wood for energy on a massive scale. Not only are they going back to the future, but they also claim doing so is carbon neutral (spoiler alert: it isn’t, not even close). Nearly 40% of Europe’s so-called renewable energy is currently obtained by combusting wood, much of it coming from forests in the US. In a farce so perverted and obscene that it can only be the work of bloated and arrogant bureaucracies, a carbon accounting loophole is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere today that will take decades to abate using natural means. Further, the fact that mature trees sequester huge amounts of CO2 compared to newly planted saplings is ignored, making the premature death of that generation irrelevant to the political calculations of environmental impact. Studies show that the burning of mature US trees absolutely overwhelms the carbon impact of all electric vehicles ever sold in the UK. All the economic sacrifices made in the name of minimizing our impact on the climate are turned into a mockery by this one insanity.
Oh yes! UK governments have been taken to the cleaners by France & later, China. Contract penalties are unbelievable; there is no way out. Well done, UK!
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.
Oh gosh another false claim. Oil and gas industry gets the same depression allowance that Tesla or that any other business is allowed. Stop spreading false information.
Fossil fuel firms' multi-billion-pound state subsidies revealed in accidentally leaked secret files Taxpayer support for export deals benefits coal, oil and gas firm massively but renewables hardly get any www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuel-firms-billion-pound-uk-state-subsidies-oil-gas-firms-leak-climate-change-environment-a7690966.html%3famp
joe m Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thoughtMost energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies
I doubt they'll ever come down, once the subsidies stop. Without the cost of removing them, they'll stay there until they fall over. It will be Greenpower RIP Rust In Peace.
The money for decommissioning is held in an escrow account, so regardless of what happens they will be removed at the end of their life cycle unless the company decides to re-power for another life cycle. The freedom to leave them standing and rotting after they expire is not left up to the companies to make, government forces them to escrow the money for decommissioning or face a hefty fine.
"Cut the cost by 60%." 60% of what? The projected cost before it was actually done? 60% of the cost of other installations? It's not clear. If it is by 60% of what it was projected, then that means little since projected costs are usually quite conservative with a number of large "fudge factors" thrown for unforeseen costs. These can add up to a lot. 50% or more is not unusual. The designers want to be sure to cover their ass should things not go as planned. Same for the contractors. No one knows the true cost until the project is done. If it's 60% of several other installations (not just one other installation) of the same magnitude and capabilities, then it is quite an achievement and kudos to them. Assuming it lasts as long as the others and does as well. That only time well tell.
If only one of you hears my call to help me develop my invention that can produce electricity even inside your bedroom because it's pollution free and most of all no refueling and recharging needed, you might not be needing to create thus very expensive structure on the sea that might endanger inhabitants in that area and damage echo system.
Look's cool but music make's it an infomercial. Maybe just float a city next time put wind power on it. Why land? Sea level rise. Build an ark you'll need it. So much long chain hydrocarbon to burn, so little time.
Energy Companies: Let's make power with coal. Environmentalists: We don't like that. Free Market Wankers: How *dare* you question the unassailable wisdom of the free market? Don't you know that the job creators are infallible and flawlessly allocate resources for the highest possible good blah blah blah blah 'scuse me while I misquote Adam Smith and touch myself. Energy Companies: You know what? Wind is getting really cheap. Let's just do that instead. Environmentalists: Yay! Free Market Wankers: Pffft, whatever, they don't know what they're doing. Ideology is funny. By their own "logic," if the market is choosing to spend money on this, it is the unassailably correct action. But they don't like it, because "libtards" do, so they contradict themselves without a second thought. Because above all else, you can't *ever* admit that people extolling the virtues of renewable energy may have been right all along.
The POTUS is largely irrelevant to the future of energy. It's mostly in the hands of the state PUCs, the utility companies, and us, the consumers. The POTUS can get the EPA to back off on regulating the coal industry to death. He can't force us, the utility companies, or the state PUCs to stop buying solar panels and wind turbines and switch back to coal-fired power plants instead.
Its a great idea - the dead birds become fish food before you can count them, God knows no one will miss a few thousand Scottish Sea Gulls, and the price of power won't go up much, Al Gore will be so proud of you because no matter how high the oceans get these will always float at a constant level, and when Scotland is entirely under, the Scots will be able to the wind mills and not drown in the High Lands.
If Scotland was 'entirely under' then no England,Wales,Ireland,Netherlands,France would be the 'Alpine islands' shared with Germany,Switz,Austria,Italy etc etc
Proud to see it working now - I was the lead of the team at Siemens selling the windturbines for this project.
HOW MUCH SLUSH MONEY DID SIEMENS PAY FOR THE CONTRACT??????????????????????
@@oriel229 Your keyboard is broken (and your brain too, possibly)
Your videographer deserves a promotion for that shot of the tower mating at night - truly magnificent!
Took me a while to believe that it is actually FLOATING. Incredible.
Bernoulli.
No kidding! Me too! I couldn’t wrap my head around the multiple stability issues to overcome!
It floats the same way a ship does - a metal container filled with air and ballast. They used iron ore, which is about twice as dense as regular rock. That ensures the bottom of the container stays down. The rest is air, which provides the buoyancy to float. The three suction anchors keep it from drifting sideways. Those are open-bottom cylinders which are driven into the sea floor by sucking the water out of them. The water pressure above forces them down into the mud or sand.
Dani Eder very interesting. Thank you for the information/clarification!
Dani Eder very well said +++++++
One of my favorite stories of the year.
Absolutely phenomenal! An inspiring story on capacity of humans to do good; some hope for future generations of this planet.
Extremely well developed, produced, and executed. Congrats and thanks!
Tack så mycket Norge och Skotland för att hjälpa till att rädda vår fantastiska planet..
It's BIG and it floats. Amazing.
It's awesome. Thanks for sharing!
Elegant and a way to produce much needed clean energy ♡.
Cheers to those are are able to dream, and work towards it. You are an inspiration, and truly bring honor to what it is that is to be human.
No, wrong. This is Big Oil at its worst, Bait-and-Switch scams and sucker traps to get people to embrace Big Oil's energy plan = 80% NG/20% wind/solar. Yep, that will work.
Tell me more.
Thank you for subscribing to my channel, jack frost!
The renewables pixie power fantasy has already failed. 20 yrs now our governments have been pushing wind/solar/efficiency. Since that all started at Kyoto, Japan in 1997, emissions have increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs. Some success that was. They've already blown over $2 trillion on wind and solar with zero results. A recent analysis of the success of decarbonization efforts for electricity generation over the past 63 yrs have shown that Nuclear and Hydro both worked and were very successful. Hydro being severely limited by geography. While wind and solar has been a dismal failure, showing no correlation between wind & solar penetration and the carbon intensity of electricity generation ( gms CO2 eq emitted per kwh generated). This of course is all due to the terrible problems of wind & solar electricity generation.
ua-cam.com/video/v1f4BKsFrCA/v-deo.html James Hansen & Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?
huyked Falling wind and solar costs are set to spur even greater investment in renewable technologies. Goldman Sachs Research’s Alberto Gandolfi forecasts that by 2023, renewables will be able to operate without government subsidies. From there, Gandolfi expects wind and solar deployment to accelerate, reaching $3 trillion over the next 20 years.
www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/alberto-gandolfi-wind-and-solar-boom.html?mediaIndex=1&autoPlay=true&cid=sch-pd-google-windandsolarboom-searchad-201707--&mkwid=U91OTWID
Brilliant promo movie. Must have been made by a top PR firm or a firm deserving to be a top PR firm. The shots, words, voices and everything about it moves the viewer profoundly. Of course the story is a good one but it's all in the telling.
This is in my home town so it's cool to see how it's built!
Brilliant technology & application. Keep up the good work.
This is Beyond Amazing.
Very inspiring project, congrats to who involved.
Awesome! This is absolutely superb sight. What an achievement. Good job for humanity's development.
Great work Scotland. Proud to say Australia has also just installed the largest battery farm in the world at 100mwh from the legendary Tesla. Be good to see these turbines hooked up to batteries.
they will, to 1MWh battery by statoil
Yeah but Australia is also completely corrupted by the coal industry. Remind me how many tons of waste were just approved to be dumped on the Great Barrier Reef?
Ady - you have been brainwashed by the Green Left. Wake up. UN socialists want $US2.5 trillion EVERY year to give to 3rd world. This is wealth transfer NOT "action on climate emergency" They could use this money to build nuclear but UN hate nuclear & hydro (the only feasible renewables)
@@megmartel6005 What you think there is no coal industry or coal waste in Australia? You are claiming someone else is brain-washed? Lol
While battery storage is hugely important for getting to net zero. The cobalt and lithium mining required for the raw materials to make Tesla batteries are ecologically devastating. Fortunately there are hundreds of other ways to store energy. Pumped underwater air storage batteries, heated sand batteries, co2 ( closed loop, none escapes the system). Resivour batteries, gravity batteries, flywheel batteries, etc.
Well done!
this is amazing structural/hydrodynamics engineering principle deployed for future brought present in green energy generation. kudos to Scot in pioneering the cutting-edge modern engineering in green energy power-generation.
I'm about to cry. This is truly inspiring.
heppolt wind tubrine
Awww. Don't cry.
+jack frost Your comment is a hot mess. I think you were saying that in Cape Cod Massachusetts in the USA, an oil tycoon convinced people to complain about noise.
+jack frost Dude, your comment made almost no sense. Did you read it? I wasn't commenting on the message itself, because I have no idea if that's true or false. But thanks for the name-calling. Maybe try posting sober next time.
This is what you wrote: "Still uses oil beautiful its a start better than in Merica in cape cose ma a oil typhoon lives there and convinced drooling Neanderthals to complian about noise and it being a sore site for offshore wind
Reply"
PS. I was born on the cape and raised in MA.
it is awesome!
Just amazing ♡
amazing people !! real mathematicians !! genius !!
This is absolutly amazing!
Parabéns do Brasil. Esse é o mundo que todos queremos. Abraços;
this is the most amazing energy source ever
What I love about wind turbines is that it is possible to take one production process and repeat it again and again to scale up - so you have a chance to get better and better at making them which isn't possible when working with large power stations where you're only making one very large system. Also if you have X money you can scale the number of turbines you build to fit it and that doesn't prevent you from adding more in future. etc.
And, as technology improves, you can replace the generator, rotor and gear box at anytime without having to build new towers.
Blades are made of steel, fibreglass, copper, iron & plastic - they also don't last forever and kill millions of birds & bats, cause health problems for humans ...and is hugely expensive (without subsidies) and inefficient (only work when wind blows). They also always need backup ie baseload power from coal/other. At best wind & solar "renewables" are adjuncts NOT replacements for fossil fuels. If UN were serious about CO2 "crisis" they would back nuclear & hydro not wind & solar. It's about wealth transfer not climate change.
Congratulations!
Fantastic! Wish I could have been part of something so wonderful and good for our planet.
I hope this shows other big oil companies what needs to be done - change from "big oil" to "big wind or solar"
Cheers
Patrick - wind & solar are adjuncts only. They will never replace biofuels, nuclear or hydro because they always need baseload (back up) & are hugely expensive without gov subsidies. Interesting that UN back the unreliable, expensive wind & solar but not nuclear or hydro which are real substitutes for fossil fuels. UN also want $US2.5 trillion EVERY year from the West to give to poor countries. This is wealth transfer NOT "fighting climate change" It's a rort. CO2 is not a problem for humans or the planet. Globalists want control over the rich West. They want communism for the West while they remain mega rich.
It will be interesting to see how well they hold up to extreme conditions and what the actual output over the years will be.
Well statoil, now Equinor has a lot of experiense working offshore, so hopefully they will do ok :)
This is a big step towards sustainable clean energy! Great job!
This wind turbine industry is built only to provide extreme revenue to already rich companies. At the bottom of the priority list is the consideration for nature. This industry has spent a lot of time and money looking like green energy. They also rightly use it as perpetual energy.
Windmill energy can certainly be green energy but then in only certain conditions. It is that the energy is used in the area it is produced. The condition is that it should not be transported on high-voltage lines in the air voltage and that necessary transformers are far away from areas where people live. Current with 50 hz / possibly 60 hz AC creates, as known, environmentally harmful conditions for animals and humans.
Many feel great discomfort with magnetic fields, and many suffer from a number of diseases including blood cancer.
Today, this company Equinor (formerly Statoil) is a world-renowned company for the sale of oil, energy and more. And they are like all other such companies a devastating factor for nature on land and at sea. Equinor is a Norwegian company and aims to sell energy to a number of European countries. To achieve this goal, Equinor does not care that nature is being destroyed.
Wao This is fantastic
The best thing I like about this is that Statoil is OIL and they are moving to be the floating turbine leader. The skills oil companies have in 'deep water' for oil production have so much potential to make floating wind a giant resource in the world. The oil development companies don't have to go away, just change paths. It will be impossible for most but the amount of energy that is needed from renewables is way more than that will be pumped out of the ground. ~Good luck Statoil.
Finland is home to the world's first commercial-scale sand battery. It uses sand rejected by builders.
A new way of storing renewable energy is providing clean heat through the long Nordic nights.
The battery consists of 100 tonnes of low-grade builders' sand, two district heating pipes and a fan. The sand becomes a battery after it is heated up to 600C using electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels.
We need this in South Africa
I'm giving it all she's got captain!! we need more powerrrr!!
Great to see Scotland as a world leader in wind turbine innovation. Dragging the UK into the 21st century
My country England still plugging away with old nuclear Power stations.
Yes they had proper Scottish accents haha.... They are using Scotland as a testing area by the looks of it.
Actually... (newer) nuclear power plants are greener than you might think. But these floating wind turbines are still awesome! :)
LOL England has quite a few in the top ten of the Worlds largest Wind Farms which have been producing more energy than nuclear for a while now, the UK has been leading the world in offshore wind energy so dont think Scotland is particularly dragging anyone in this regard. I find it strange someone can suddenly find a youtube video on a floating wind turbine and feel confident to make a statement about UK energy production and not have had any other interest in all the other videos out there on UK offshore wind sites in the last 10 years. Great to see more innovation but not the ignorant trolling.
Congratulations
5000 tons of iron ore ballast! Impressive amount. I wonder if this is per substructure or total...
Uau. Excited..
I Just Love the Technology (as long as it helps Humans and don't hurt the Nature). Such Mega Windmills are Awesome. 😘
Cool.👍
Congratulations and many thanks to Statoil - 6 MW per turbine - not bad!
felicitaciones!, los admiro, como investigador también tengo el sueño de que en Colombia se instalen este tipo de turbinas. Cuenten con un colaborador en Colombia.
Att Juan Gabriel Rueda Bayona
When I see green energy projects like this, it makes me so optimistic for the future of mankind.
World class island
nice to see, it just would have been nice to see them all working in the video not just one for a half a sec.
Amazing its really float and stay upright?
Amazing that people actually think 400 year old tech is the answer for us. These turbines are very expensive to maintain. Every country that has switched to wind and solar has seen very steep increases in utility prices. This is hurting the old and poor the most.
Love to see it in rough seas
You will ! North Sea is brutal.
I have some shares of stock in Statoil, i live in the US. love seeing this.
WoW!!!!
I wonder how they're anchored to the sea floor? They must be extremely strong anchors to not be ripped out of the floor. Very impressive.
16m tall suction anchors- can't you follow the video?
I wonder how they will hold up to the extreme weather, storms, extremely high winds and waves of the northern seas.
A truly great achievement, just a bit puzzled as to why ,with our history of building floating production platforms for the major oil and gas companies,we couldn’t have built all of these in Scotland?.
What "we"? Why would a Norwegian company build it in Scotland though? The idea and technology wasn't invented by Scots, so you don't reap the benefits.
I thought Scotland was cold!
Why then do they need such big fans?
Very cool. Regardless of the cost/benefits it's cool to be alive to see such amazing structures being built by my fellow humans. Many of the negative comments below are directed at the energy for construction versus energy produced. None of the negative comments I saw offered any kind of documentation or references to studies. The Wikipedia article on wind turbines presents quite a bit of information that refutes most of the criticisms that were put forth in the comments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power From that article: The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. According to a meta study, in which all existing studies from 1977 to 2007 were reviewed, the EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35,[18] with the most common turbines in the range of 2 MW nameplate capacity-rotor diameters of 66 meters, on average the EROI is 16.
So EROI (Energy Return on Investment) is 16 on the most common size of windmills and presumably as time goes on that number will climb towards or above the highest EROI's obtained today. This seems to be a complete refutation of one of the most common criticisms made in the comments.
Very cool project. The Norwegian people were easier to understand than the Scottish guy. :)
How much carbon print was needed just to get it built and setup? I'd just use a tugboat. That matters if it took 2 years of carbon worth just to set it up then you must make the process even more efficient.
That said. I'm glad to see the idea to fruition.
Классно, есть чему позавидовать.
One of the few things I can be prowd of in modern Britain.
In what time it will cost back? They will be independent.
about 20% of the UK's energy is now from wind and constantly increasing. brilliant stuff
NO
NO
NO
Thats just propognda
At best it is 20% of the UKs *RENEWABLE ENERGY"
which includes things like biofuels which cause starvation in 3rd world
and burning wood chips which is devastating forests in USA.
@@burgesspark685That was an anticipation figure while the infrastructure was being brought online (has been taking 10 years mostly of legal red tape to get one online), no need to be so shrill and to throw back even more absurd platitudes (although I have seen your posts on numerous videos about Wind Power and can only conclude you are an incentivised troll). Just 4 years later and Anyone with a web browser and a brain to do a search can literaly sit and watch the live official electricity generation figures of the UK. I am doing that now and Renewable (Wind, Solar and Hydro-Electric) is accounting for 61.4% of electricity production for the UK today, with Wind being the lions share at 35.9% of the whole of the UKs generation. Biomass is 3.5% oh and by the way not everyone includes Biomass as ahe official definition of renewable, only some dodgy private companies/governments do. In the UK grid burning biomass also comes from incinerating household waste (UK waste is even sent to Norway to incinerate which contributes the electricty back into the UKs national grid). Your "wood pellet" comment is hilarious, you have never heard of the logging industry in North America? You think that North America can not manage that asset? Eitherway its a tiny % of the UKs electricity grid. Your embarrasing "starvation" faux concern is not backed up by any statistics, most of the "food" burnt in UK biomass is UK agricultural waste and unused animal food. For anyone interested the site "grid im kate" google seach provides interesting real time production and consumption, remember the UK energy electrical grid included two-way flows between other countries as well, including France, Ireland and Norway.
@@suburbia2050
what utter garbage you write - except thats an insult to garbage
seriously - look around and tell me where all these wind farms that generate the imaginary "61%"
of our power are ??? The reality is that London alone needs a wind farm the size of Wales to
satisfy its power requirements
The current energy crisis has been caused 100% by the uncontrolled and moronic shift to
renewable energy sources which are incapable of supplying our needs
As for your insults - its typical of left-wing environmentalists to jump on the "incentivised troll"
argument whenever anyone disagrees with your lunacy.
and you seriously are arguing to burn wood (which emits 4 times the CO2 of coal)
😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
In the second half of the 16th century, Britain plunged into an energy crisis. At the time, the primary source of energy driving the British economy was heat derived from the burning of wood, and Britain was literally running out of trees.
As the supply of wood dried up, its price began to soar and inflation set in, compounding the problem and spreading it to all corners of the economy. With imports from continental Europe insufficient to close the growing supply gap, the resulting crisis was dire.
And then they discovered coal. Well, they didn’t exactly “discover” coal - it had been known for centuries that coal could be a useful fuel - but they did learn that coal could replace wood in many important applications. They also recognized that they had a lot of it.
With a higher energy density than wood, coal is a superior fuel that enabled meaningful improvements in the British economy. Trees could be preserved for construction purposes, homes could be more efficiently heated, and companies could leapfrog their competitors.
It is now well understood that the wide adoption of primary fuels with high energy density enables a better standard of living. Transitioning to higher density fuels is something that usually occurs spontaneously in an economy unless politicians interfere.
Wood to coal to oil to gas to nuclear.
In another example, the history of propulsion technology at sea is marked by a completely sensible journey up the energy density ladder. Wind power gave way to coal, which was displaced by diesel, which ultimately gave way to nuclear technology in military vessels.
Given this, it is astounding to learn that the European Union and Britain are incentivizing a return to the primitive concept of burning wood for energy on a massive scale. Not only are they going back to the future, but they also claim doing so is carbon neutral (spoiler alert: it isn’t, not even close). Nearly 40% of Europe’s so-called renewable energy is currently obtained by combusting wood, much of it coming from forests in the US.
In a farce so perverted and obscene that it can only be the work of bloated and arrogant bureaucracies, a carbon accounting loophole is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere today that will take decades to abate using natural means.
Further, the fact that mature trees sequester huge amounts of CO2 compared to newly planted saplings is ignored, making the premature death of that generation irrelevant to the political calculations of environmental impact.
Studies show that the burning of mature US trees absolutely overwhelms the carbon impact of all electric vehicles ever sold in the UK. All the economic sacrifices made in the name of minimizing our impact on the climate are turned into a mockery by this one insanity.
I think windmills are optimised at 600 metre rotor diameter and 900 metre towers.@@burgesspark685
I love wind turbines
How much does each cost?
Music ? anyone know ?
Why not in shallow waters so wave power could be collected at the same time?
Probably limited due to ecosystems near the shore. Waves can be harnessed at see though, wavegenerator instead of tidal
Красота
It's is green eco-friendly future
That's HUUUUUGE
класс!
Humans at play!
Should rename yourself Statwind!
And yet we are going ahead with Hinckley point?
Oh yes! UK governments have been taken to the cleaners by France & later, China. Contract penalties are unbelievable; there is no way out.
Well done, UK!
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.
Oh gosh another false claim. Oil and gas industry gets the same depression allowance that Tesla or that any other business is allowed. Stop spreading false information.
Fossil fuel firms' multi-billion-pound state subsidies revealed in accidentally leaked secret files
Taxpayer support for export deals benefits coal, oil and gas firm massively but renewables hardly get any
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/environment/fossil-fuel-firms-billion-pound-uk-state-subsidies-oil-gas-firms-leak-climate-change-environment-a7690966.html%3famp
joe m Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thoughtMost energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies
Betz limit has been smashed and debunked by the gyro wind turbine regards Graham Flowers
I made these drone shots
Pollution, resource constraints and entropy will eventually get us all.
So how much does each turbine cost and final cost of the farm?
Come on now unrealone 1, don't spoil all the little greenies' moment of fantasy.
It's like telling infants Santa Claus isn't real.
Thank's good reply, yes and all the turbines have to come down every 20 years and be recycled?
The greens are true idiots.
I doubt they'll ever come down, once the subsidies stop. Without the cost of removing them, they'll stay there until they fall over.
It will be Greenpower RIP
Rust In Peace.
The money for decommissioning is held in an escrow account, so regardless of what happens they will be removed at the end of their life cycle unless the company decides to re-power for another life cycle. The freedom to leave them standing and rotting after they expire is not left up to the companies to make, government forces them to escrow the money for decommissioning or face a hefty fine.
Try google. Offshore cost estimate are easy to find and falling fast.
Interresting project but: One can barely understand a word because of the (unnecessary) music.
Who is statoil?
It was Norway's "state oil" company, now called Equinor.
How many thousand of birds do they kill? How much in subsidies do they take?
Wow Scottish Accent changed
Bad acting
Like from Russia
how is this different from GE off-shore wind turbines?
These are floating, not fixed directly to the sea bed.
"...world’s first *floating* wind farm"
The other offshore wind turbines are in shallow waters, on a solid pylon that reaches into the sea bed.
WORLD ISLAND wind farm
Tesla was figuring out how to beam energy without wires. Too bad we can't do that. The windmills would be so much easier.
Tesla was figuring it out but he never got it to work. Tesla did a lot of great work but he also failed a lot too.
Nikola Tesla was in some regards- a total wanker & con man...
How much energy to make all that steel ?
About 3 months' generation.
"Cut the cost by 60%."
60% of what? The projected cost before it was actually done? 60% of the cost of other installations? It's not clear. If it is by 60% of what it was projected, then that means little since projected costs are usually quite conservative with a number of large "fudge factors" thrown for unforeseen costs. These can add up to a lot. 50% or more is not unusual. The designers want to be sure to cover their ass should things not go as planned. Same for the contractors. No one knows the true cost until the project is done. If it's 60% of several other installations (not just one other installation) of the same magnitude and capabilities, then it is quite an achievement and kudos to them. Assuming it lasts as long as the others and does as well. That only time well tell.
Мдааа уж. Создают препятствия для судов и подводных лодок .
А в это время в России строят АЭС 5 поколения.
В Украине тоже хотят установить в черном море, осталось только денег собрать или найти инвестора
If only one of you hears my call to help me develop my invention that can produce electricity even inside your bedroom because it's pollution free and most of all no refueling and recharging needed, you might not be needing to create thus very expensive structure on the sea that might endanger inhabitants in that area and damage echo system.
And how much power does it produce? What is its load factor?
How many sea birds have these killed?
How many chickens have died?
красиво)
what about #cyclones and Hurricanes will it survive the wind force.
not many Hurricanes in Scotland.
You don't get tropical storms around Scotland. Too far North.
How is the electricity transported to the main land?
kend0638 underwater cabel
@ 1:45, underwater cables
In barges
Look's cool but music make's it an infomercial. Maybe just float a city next time put wind power on it. Why land? Sea level rise. Build an ark you'll need it. So much long chain hydrocarbon to burn, so little time.
But Trump said the future of energy would be coal.
He simply knows that renewable energy is not the solution.
Energy Companies: Let's make power with coal.
Environmentalists: We don't like that.
Free Market Wankers: How *dare* you question the unassailable wisdom of the free market? Don't you know that the job creators are infallible and flawlessly allocate resources for the highest possible good blah blah blah blah 'scuse me while I misquote Adam Smith and touch myself.
Energy Companies: You know what? Wind is getting really cheap. Let's just do that instead.
Environmentalists: Yay!
Free Market Wankers: Pffft, whatever, they don't know what they're doing.
Ideology is funny. By their own "logic," if the market is choosing to spend money on this, it is the unassailably correct action. But they don't like it, because "libtards" do, so they contradict themselves without a second thought. Because above all else, you can't *ever* admit that people extolling the virtues of renewable energy may have been right all along.
he'll be dead soon
brian whittle Fingers crossed
The POTUS is largely irrelevant to the future of energy. It's mostly in the hands of the state PUCs, the utility companies, and us, the consumers. The POTUS can get the EPA to back off on regulating the coal industry to death. He can't force us, the utility companies, or the state PUCs to stop buying solar panels and wind turbines and switch back to coal-fired power plants instead.
Refuse. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.
Everyone, please watch my little nature videos. There is no talking in them. Shhh!
Its a great idea - the dead birds become fish food before you can count them, God knows no one will miss a few thousand Scottish Sea Gulls, and the price of power won't go up much, Al Gore will be so proud of you because no matter how high the oceans get these will always float at a constant level, and when Scotland is entirely under, the Scots will be able to the wind mills and not drown in the High Lands.
If Scotland was 'entirely under' then no England,Wales,Ireland,Netherlands,France would be the 'Alpine islands' shared with Germany,Switz,Austria,Italy etc etc