News RSS Feed Send your news


Boss of North-East monster turbine project says they will get bigger


Monster wind turbines with blade spans that dwarf the London Eye could be the shape of future green power, it was revealed today.

An offshore turbine more than 500ft tall with a diameter of 475ft is already due to make an appearance in British waters within the next two years.

''They'll get bigger than 10 megawatts, is my feeling. How much bigger? I don't know.''

Bill Grainger

But the 10 megawatt machine, dubbed Britannia, may only mark the start of a growing trend, according to the project's leader Bill Grainger.

He sees no reason why offshore turbines should not get even larger, since greater size and power make economic sense.

Mr Grainger, who heads the Britannia design team, told The Engineer magazine: ''There isn't a technical issue that screams out size limit.

''You have to make changes as you get bigger. Blades get floppier, for example, so you have to put more carbon in, but we aren't anywhere near 100 per cent carbon yet.''

Mr Grainger is engineering manager at Clipper Windpower Marine, the UK arm of the US company developing the 10 megawatt turbine.

The Britannia, being built at Blyth, Northumberland, will have three enormous blades, each weighing more than 30 tonnes.

They will sweep a circle more than 100ft wider than the 400ft diameter of the London Eye.

Standing on a solid foundation on the sea bed, the wind turbine will rise 574ft above the waves. It is expected to generate enough electricity to power 10,000 homes, and over its lifetime could displace the use of two million barrels of oil.

The most likely location for Britannia is Dogger Bank, off the North-East coast.

Clipper Windpower Marine is sinking £44 million into the turbine's building facilities, including a blade factory in Newcastle. The project is also receiving £5 million from the local regional development agency, One North East.

Metal fatigue caused by the stress imposed by turning blades is one of the biggest engineering issues to be overcome by the Britannia team.

But Mr Grainger does not believe the size of wind turbines will be restricted by technical hurdles.

He told The Engineer: ''There might be a limit to the size that people want to put into the field; if a 20 megawatt turbine failed, that's a big chunk of electricity to lose. But then, if a power station goes off-line you've lost 300 megawatts, so I don't think that's a limit either.

''They'll get bigger than 10 megawatts, is my feeling. How much bigger? I don't know.''


Your Say YourNorth-East

Super steve, The land that labour ruined says...
7:14pm Sun 20 Jun 10

Beautiful, lets have hundreds of em and some modern nuclear reactors sited sensibly and we can make a huge improvement in our environment.

gilberto, says...
9:28pm Sun 20 Jun 10

They might look pretty but only if the wind is blowing...... at just the right speed. More nuclear and tidal power would be better.

gilberto, says...
9:31pm Sun 20 Jun 10

Correction- They might look pretty but only *work*

Super steve, The land that labour ruined says...
3:15pm Mon 21 Jun 10

Most modern turbines run between 5 MPH winds and 40 plus MPH winds, Though I agree adding wave, biomass, geothermal and solar to the mix wouild be a plus.

gilberto, says...
4:59pm Mon 21 Jun 10

The problem is with wind is it's unpredictable, where as the tides are predictable to about 200 years into the future and we need stability in our energy supplies. I think wind is the emporor's new clothes of power sources and is more of a marketing ploy so energy companies and governments can say that they're 'green'.

Super steve, The land that labour ruined says...
8:19pm Mon 21 Jun 10

gilberto wrote:
The problem is with wind is it's unpredictable, where as the tides are predictable to about 200 years into the future and we need stability in our energy supplies. I think wind is the emporor's new clothes of power sources and is more of a marketing ploy so energy companies and governments can say that they're 'green'.
Its stilll a massive amount of relatively easy energy to access though, and most WFs are in locations were its windy over 200 days a year.

Copley23, Bishop Auckland says...
3:33pm Thu 24 Jun 10

I am wondering how much energy is already used in the building/making of these amazing structures.....mmm..

Super steve, The land that labour ruined says...
4:09pm Thu 24 Jun 10

Copley23 wrote:
I am wondering how much energy is already used in the building/making of these amazing structures.....mmm..
Well the steel works and concrete plants that make the base and towers already exist, as do the fibre glass manufactuerers who make the blades as well as things like boat hulls.
the generators and gearboxes are already also mass produced. and when assembled they simply sit there making electricity without poluting anything.

Now modern nuclear plants I am reliably informed require huge amounts of cabon intensive engineering and specialist materials, costs thousands of times more and are deadly polutants for thousands of years.

The building costs are only surpassed by the decommisioning costs, and the risk to health and the environment is massive.

Comments are closed on this article.


Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »