[HN Gopher] How the Biggest Plane Would Supersize Wind Energy
___________________________________________________________________
How the Biggest Plane Would Supersize Wind Energy
Author : tlb
Score : 14 points
Date : 2024-03-13 11:26 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| gnicholas wrote:
| How much more energy can these large blades produce that it's
| worth inventing a new kind of airplane (and apparently a purpose-
| built airstrip for every destination) to ship them? And if they
| ever break and need fixing, do you have to go pick them up, take
| them in for repair, and bring them back?
|
| If they've raised $100M+, I assume these questions have been
| asked, but I'm just generally skeptical that the math makes
| sense.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Why not an airship at this scale?
| karmakaze wrote:
| I was thinking the same, like the Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV)
| Airlander 10.
| vipshek wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > Radia estimates the larger turbines could reduce the cost of
| energy by up to 35% and increase the consistency of power
| generation by 20% compared with today's onshore turbines.
|
| Not sure what that translates to in terms of energy output over
| time.
|
| As for the sibling "Why not airships?" question, the article
| says:
|
| > Blimps can't land in windy conditions. Helicopters are more
| costly than airplanes, and flying with a dangling blade
| designed to catch wind would prove complex and dangerous.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Does this cost reduction factor in the cost of making a new
| airplane company? If they transport a million blades then the
| cost per blade is not that high. But if they only make 10,000
| blades then it becomes more of a factor (especially if the
| useful life turns out to be not as long as predicted).
| baseline-shift wrote:
| We are headed for 20 MW now, so a wind farm with five 20 MW
| turbines is a typical size for many gas power plants; 100 MW.
|
| In the EU, there's testing facilities that are checking these
| at this 20 MW size now. Commercially at this point there's up
| to 17 MW operating in the North Sea.
| Arrath wrote:
| > (and apparently a purpose-built airstrip for every
| destination)
|
| Having built a 64-turbine windfarm back in the 2000's (so they
| were likely smaller than they are now) a goodly chunk of the
| work involved was site prep in building access roads
| traversable by the cranes required to set everything up, and
| the massively over-length trailers carrying the blades. Things
| like maximum grade, radius of the turns, breakover angle etc
| were hugely important.
|
| Grading out and paving an airstrip when you already have an
| appreciable contingent of heavy earthworking equipment onsite
| and, likely, also a concrete batch plant to reduce the travel
| time for the concrete you're using for the foundations really
| isn't too big of a stretch!
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| Their website says it can land on a packed dirt airstrip,
| 6000ft long. I wonder if they would park all the nearby
| windmills during takeoff/landing, to avoid creating swirly
| air.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| If the plane really is task built that would be super cool. Huge
| plane (108m/356ft), carrying pretty light cargo all in all
| (blades of this length weigh probably 20~25T), that ideally can
| land and takeoff on short runways (to maximize the number of
| airports it can deliver to). By compare, a 777 will be either 60
| or 75m long and carry 220t, and itself weigh 160t. Neat idea.
| Being able to get bigger blades to sites would be great. It also
| would enable centralizing the production better, which could be
| an efficiency win; a couple big factories cranking out blades.
| There's a lot of practical scale-out this would enable.
|
| The plane really is pretty wildly proportioned. I'm not sure what
| the total internal volume/cross section is expected to be but
| that's a long plane! Carrying not much weight! The blades are big
| but not colossal: by compare, the offshore Vestas V164 10MW
| turbine has 160m blades (weighting 35t); this is being designed
| for ~100m.
|
| It's definitely good to ask what else such a craft might be
| useful for. The low capacity is an obvious downside, but if it
| can access lots of airfields that could be quite enticing.
|
| Edit: Missed this: _With a capacity for 80 tons._ That 's a lot
| more than I expected! It doesn't seem to make sense to me, for
| the payload it'll carry.
|
| Also: _The WindRunner includes shoulder-height tires and has the
| ability to land on a packed-dirt 6,000-foot runway, which would
| need to be built for each project._ Well, that 's neat &
| potentially immensely useful for a lot.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Interestingly the article mentions oil and gas as a potential
| alternate/additional customer.
| johnea wrote:
| Looks like WSJ is blocking archive.ph on this one...
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| The first snapshot didnt show the paywall,
| https://archive.ph/SJJfC
| bookofjoe wrote:
| here: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/how-the-worlds-
| bigge...
| bookofjoe wrote:
| try this: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/how-the-
| worlds-bigge...
| xnx wrote:
| I'm not able to open the WSJ link, but I found more info here:
| https://radia.com/windrunner
|
| I like this kind of crazy thinking. I wonder if there are also
| scenarios where blades can be shipped by truck 95% of the way,
| but the "last mile" is by helicopter.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Yes most pay-walled articles aren't unique. I searched for
| "Radia Windrunner" and got a bunch of stories.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Here you go: https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/how-the-
| worlds-bigge...
| baseline-shift wrote:
| It really doesn't seem like it could pencil out, as it carries
| only one blade at a time, that's three trips for each turbine -
| and most windfarms would have more than one. But I guess they
| think it does. Perhaps they can also deliver to offshore farms,
| which already have contracts. I know there is a shortage of the
| specialized ships to float their huge blades out.
|
| Also, I hope they've done their homework on NIMBY pushback on
| land which is pretty effective against wind farms even with
| regular sized turbines.
| NikkiA wrote:
| Also, wind farms with giant blades tend not to be built close
| to airports, for some obscure reason.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Obviously because they put airports where there isn't wind.
| nharada wrote:
| By the time this gets certified will the blades have grown too
| large for it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-13 23:02 UTC)