In a development plan published by the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, the country is now targeting 40 gigawatts by 2034, compared with an earlier goal of as much as 50 gigawatts by 2035.
The move is a response to increasingly crowded seas, which can cause a so-called wake effect — a loss in output from wind farms built too close together. But with less capacity set to be tendered, Germany’s offshore-wind ambitions — already hampered by delays in grid link-ups — may be even further from reach.
The country is working toward a series of offshore-wind targets, culminating in a 2045 goal of 70 gigawatts. But plans have been hit by supply-chain issues affecting turbine construction and installation, in turn curbing grid connections. Now, efforts to limit generation capacity compound uncertainty for the industry. The lack of a stable planning environment “makes investment decisions more difficult and delays the necessary expansion of offshore wind energy,” the German Offshore Wind Energy Association said in a statement…
The agency’s decision includes capacity cuts of as much as 50% at a couple of wind sites. It also assessed expansion plans in the Netherlands — where future projects may have a “negative impact on the expected energy yields” in adjacent German areas — and in Denmark.
Here is a great photo showing the wake effect. Atmospheric conditions were just right, so clouds formed in the turbulence created by the first row of wind turbines. The clouds may not always form like this, but the turbulence will always be present, whenever the blades are turning.
Which begs the question, why would they be lined up in a straight row where that could happen? I’m sure some computer algorithm could map placements where the wake effect would be minimized.
The wind doesn’t always blow in the same direction. It is coincidental that the photo was taken when the wind was blowing straight down the rows of turbines. An alternative would be to arrange the turbines like the stars on the United States flag with 50 stars, compared to the old flag with 48 stars. With 48, the stars were lined up in rows and columns. The arrangement in the 50-star flag is more staggered. But, if the wind shifts in the wrong direction, the wake problem could arise again.
The capacity factor for Germany’s offshore wind farms is not as good as one might expect. Offshore wind is supposed to be more consistent, so the capacity factors should be maybe 40% or better. I figure the off-shore capacity factor for 2024 was around 33%. The German wind farms on land only achieved a 20% capacity factor last year. The capacity factor for US wind farms, which are almost exclusively on land, is around 34 or 35% in most years.
Orsted claims that four nearby wind farms in the Irish Sea could result in a drop in Orsted’s annual energy production of up to 5.34%, and is seeking mitigation or compensation.
I hope the governors of New York, New Jersey and Virginia are paying attention.
Overall, yearlong simulated wake impacts reduce power output by a range between 38% and 34%. Internal wakes cause greater yearlong power losses, from 29% to 26%, compared to external wakes, from 15 % to 13%.
Yes I know. But there must be some arrangement where the wind coming from any particular direction would be unlikely to find “a row” of turbines of more than two. They would have to be staggered in some demented pattern, probably looking like they were arranged by a drunken engineer, yet I’m sure there could be a pattern to minimize this “wind theft” effect.
The “average” wind farm, google-foo tells me, has 50 turbines. Surely those could be arranged in some pattern to optimize (or rather de-optimize) the effect - even if that meant having a couple fewer turbines, that would be mitigated by having them be more efficient over their lifetime.
What am I missing? (Yes, as the number of turbines increases the game gets harder, but there still has to be a better way, no?)
The photo shows a line of turbines arranged in a perfectly straight line. There appear to be at least 6, perhaps as may as 10 in a row, with multiple rows across, and there are unimpeded spaces between each one.
Yes, that’s because of the exact angle the photo is taken from (and the direction of the wind at that moment), my posit is that there is some number of turbines which will fit in the same space, and be arranged in such a way that there are never more than 2 in a line no matter what angle the wind comes from.
If I knew of an AI function dealing with geometry, and I knew how to frame it he problem, I would ask it to make me a plot map to see. Perhaps it’s impracticable and the number of turbines would be cut in half in the same area or something. If it was reduced by, say, 10%, it might save money and produce even more power. Perhaps not, dunno.
Things are learned at the outset of any new technology that look obvious later, but not so at the beginning. The Wright Brothers plane had the ailerons (or what served the purpose) at the front of the plane, where they obviously belonged at the back. You see?
Wind direction is not in question. Prevailing west to east is the rule most places. If you have a flag to watch usually a bit to the northeast. It changes mostly when fronts move in. Counterclockwise around a low. So south to north indicates strong low pressure to the west–big storm due soon.
All of this is known and should be part of siting and investment decisions.
