Statoil to store energy from floating Scottish wind farm in batteries

Posted: March 21, 2016 by oldbrew in Energy, turbines, wind

Floating wind turbine [image credit:]

Floating wind turbine [image credit:]

No mention of the cost of project Batwind in this report.

Norwegian oil group Statoil said Monday it would store energy from a Scottish floating wind farm on a powerful battery storage system, in a pioneering pilot project. The system’s one megawatt-hour Lithium battery capacity corresponds to that of “more than two million iPhones,” Statoil said in a statement, making it one of the world’s most ambitious projects in the field.

The specialised website Recharge referred to the project as a “potentially game-changing battery storage system” in an industry where storage is a key issue.

Batteries are one of new frontiers in energy investment. Renewables producers can tap into stored energy to instantly meet peaks in demand or compensate for periods of low wind and poor sunshine.

Statoil’s pilot project is due to be installed at the end of 2018 and hooked up to the world’s first floating wind farm which is expected to begin producing electricity a year earlier, with five Hywind turbines placed 25 kilometres (15 miles) off the Scottish coast.

“Battery storage has the potential to mitigate intermittency (of wind energy) and optimise output,” Statoil said in a statement. “This can improve efficiency and lower costs for offshore wind,” it added. Dubbed Batwind, the battery system will be developed jointly with universities and Scottish suppliers, Statoil said. report: Statoil to store energy from floating wind farm in batteries

  1. oldbrew says:

    Hard to imagine the National Grid trying to impress people by saying how many iPhones they could charge up 😐

  2. ntesdorf says:

    It would be interesting to tour the future Scottish floating wind farm after it has been wrecked by a powerful offshore storm or after the Lithium battery system has gone critical and exploded. However it’s costs may still prevent it getting near these stages.

  3. Bryan says:

    With subsidies and a good salesman you can sell anything to a ‘green’ politician.

  4. Bryan says:

    it looks like Statoil have arrived a little late on the scene…….

  5. Paul2 says:

    Imagine the pollution once the sea eats away at the protective housing.

  6. catweazle666 says:

    Gosh, a whole megawatt-hour! Really?

    Given that the UK’s daily consumption is around 35 gigawatt-hours, that’ll keep us going for a whole 1,000,000/35,000,000,000 days AKA 1/35,000th of a day AKA 2.46 seconds.

    I’m impressed!

    (Can someone check my arithmetic please, surely there’s something wrong somewhere, nobody can be THAT stupid!)

  7. Timo Soren says:

    I mega-watt condensed into a small package floating in violent sea, can’ wait to hear how they are going to transmit that package to mainland, 15 miles away where the sea is about 400 feet deep. Land transmission lines are about .5 million euro a mile. That would make it over 8 million euro just for a line. ROI is not happening….

  8. nzrobin says:

    Catweazwel, it is worse than you think. The UK peak demand is around 53GW. The storage device supposedly provides 1MW for 1 hour. If it could provide output at the rate consumed by the country (which of course it cannot) it would last only 0.07 seconds at peak time. (1MW/53000MW*3600seconds/hour). Another way to look at would be to say it can provide 0.002% of the country’s peak requirement, for 1 hour. 1/53000 = 0.002%.

  9. E.M.Smith says:

    So take excessively expensive electricity, add a LOT more capital cost, throw away about 10% of the energy, minimum, for the charge /discharge round trip, and this is better how? Oh, and you get abouf 1000 to 3000 charge cycles to replacement, so about 4 to 8 years max and you get to pay for it all over again…

  10. Fanakapan says:

    As with all beliefs that place faith before evidence, the power of Warming is such that due diligence will be out to lunch when Statoil go sniffing around for money that will likely be gone long before any of these floating boondoggles becomes a reality.

    As for Offshore Wind in general, and with the costs being utterly Fantastic compared with land based windmills, I’d have to bet that with the G looking increasingly unlikely to reach their fiscal targets (again), the chances of taxpayer money being given to any of these schemes looks less likely by the hour. And if the taxpayer is not acting as a backstop, its somewhat unlikely that any private funds will be forthcoming.

  11. Sooner or later some foolish politician will be told that it would be a good idea to move the people to where the wind blows – and they’ll start building offshore housing estates just so that they have some consumers for this outrageous and totally illogical plan.

    I prefer my energy from that very reliable, 100% solar, 100% organic energy source we call “coal”.

  12. Jason Calley says:

    Here’s an idea! Someone should design a power plant that takes a cheap commodity (maybe something like coal) and uses it to produce large quantities of power on a 24X7 basis, with the only major waste product being a form of plant fertilizer. 🙂

  13. 1 MWh would be 20 minutes to tide over a lull for a 3 MW e-windmill. Since periods with wind below 3BFt are quite frequent and sometimes can last for a week or more, a 1 MWh battery is mostly useless. I guess it is only meant to clip spikes, which are a nuisance for the transport lines to the shore and for the grid in that area, but a game changer for the intermittency on the grid it is not.

  14. Curious George says:

    Why lithium batteries? Their advantage is a low weight, but is it important here? If this is an attempt to advertise the iPhone, kudos to Apple.

  15. Ken Holsaple says:

    How many “Hiroshima’s” in 2 million iPhone’s?

  16. Curious George says:

    Oldbrew, except for weight and size, all advantages of lithium batteries are also advantages of lead-acid batteries. Correction: lead-acid batteries contain a free liquid, but why it – or a 2.0 V voltage – be a disadvantage in a stationary application is beyond me.

  17. catweazle666 says:

    “Oldbrew, except for weight and size, all advantages of lithium batteries are also advantages of lead-acid batteries.”

    Nickel-iron batteries are even more advantageous, containing no nasty heavy metals and being practically impervious to overcharging and standing flat for prolonged periods. Their only disadvantage is relatively low charge/discharge rates, but as AFAIK no development has taken place for many decades, perhaps this could be substantially improved.

  18. dscott says:

    Batteries? Really? Have they over come the bleed rate issue in battery storage? Never mind the conversion losses…

    They would be better to use the wind turbines to compress air in salt domes on an industrial scale and then use the air pressure to run a generator to produce a constant output.

  19. oldbrew says:

    It must be more efficient just to get people to charge their iPhones – or similar – when it’s windy 😉

  20. Joe says:

    That could be exciting when it goes pop…

  21. Keith Willshaw says:

    Utter bullshit. One megawatt hour is chicken feed and would represent the power produced by a turbo generator at Drax in just 6 seconds. Even the whirling eco crucifixes installed offshore produce more than that per hour. The only commercially viable method for large scale power buffering is pumped storage and we just don’t have enough spare mountains on which we can build the lakes needed even if the greens let us.

  22. oldbrew says:

    Keith W: Ireland has a plan to use seawater for pumped storage.

    This Japanese scheme seems to be the only example of seawater pumped storage in use: