Size matters when it comes to renewable power generation. (Or, perhaps better put, scale.) And the wind industry has seen turbines grow to enormous proportions. Now there is a new king among the the giant pinwheels: Named “The Britannia” (we guess “The Titanic” was already taken), the turbine tower stands about 100 meters tall with a 150-meter blade diameter, and it can kick out an impressive 7.5 megawatts. Clipper Windpower has sold its first Britannia, which it says is the world’s largest wind turbine.

The sale was made to the British Crown Estate, the monarchy’s land-holdings portfolio that today is run as a statutory corporation. The prototype turbine will be used to tap Britain’s offshore wind in an attempt to meet Britain’s ambitious goal of generating 33 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2020. Currently, only 300 megawatts of wind capacity are operating in British waters.

If Clipper’s Britannia prototype proves popular, this partnership with Crown Estate could greatly boost England’s offshore wind capacity. Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the UK, and its holdings include over half of the nation’s foreshore and almost all of the territorial seabed, up to 12 nautical miles out. It also enjoys the right to lease seabed for the generation of renewable energy on the continental shelf within the Renewable Energy Zone, which extends out to approximately 200 nautical miles. When it comes to offshore wind power, it’s good to be the king.

We expect opposition to alternative energy sources to come from the usual suspects: fossil fuel companies, their investors and the claque who trudge the political world seeking a reactionary cause to justify their tawdry voice. Wind power has added another class. The phony enviro who defines ecology as including the view from their holiday cottage.




  1. moss says:

    I can remember Comments here at DU from “experts” who said that wind generators wouldn’t be built capable of producing more than 2.5 megawatts.

    Wonder if they’ll show up, today?

  2. Miguel says:

    Weren’t you surprised to find out that the Royal family actually OWNS a huge chunk of England? Ie, in the 21st century, a country still belongs to one family, however you put it… How democratic…

  3. GigG says:

    #2 They gave up power not land.

  4. Ron Larson says:

    So how much did it cost? Is it going to be the most expensive 7.5 mW ever?

  5. Miguel says:

    #3 – Whoever owns land is the one who actually has power. No wonder they can live like they do and nobody does anything about it… I’d also live like a king if I owned most of my country…

  6. Joe says:

    @2
    It’s certainly more democratic than the US.

  7. Jonny Nexus says:

    “Weren’t you surprised to find out that the Royal family actually OWNS a huge chunk of England?”

    It doesn’t belong to the Royal Family it belongs to the crown, “the crown” being an abstract entity relating to the head-of-state position.

    Saying that the Queen owns crown property is like saying that George Bush owns the White House.

  8. Miguel says:

    #6 – Mmmm… who knows? It may appear so without it being true. It’s the country with the highest number of surveillance cameras per capita… On average, a Briton is taped 300 times PER DAY. What the fuck for? Just to get Youtube footage of the next terrorist attack?

    And that ‘House of Lords’ and ‘House of Commons’ stuff, is it democratic?

  9. ghm101 says:

    I am pleased the British Crown Estate is prepared to experiment with alternative energy, you could easily imagine them being ultra conservative and supportive of traditional industry status quo.
    I think there are plenty worse (haliburton sponsored) systems of govenment in the world than the UK.

  10. Miguel says:

    #7 – I stand corrected, but it’s almost as bad. The power (abstract term) owns the land… Yikes! Shouldn’t the people own the land? Or, more poetically, nobody?

  11. chuck says:

    “We expect opposition to alternative energy sources to come from the usual suspects: fossil fuel companies, their investors and ” – don’t forget Ted Kennedy!

  12. Jonny Nexus says:

    “#7 – I stand corrected, but it’s almost as bad. The power (abstract term) owns the land… Yikes! Shouldn’t the people own the land? Or, more poetically, nobody?”

    What do you think “the crown” is? It’s a representation of the country. In an American court you have “The people vs whoever”. In a British court you have “The crown vs whatever”.

    Are you telling me that “the people” as used in that context is not “abstract”?

    If you want to think of the crown estates in US terms, think of it as a Federal agency that owns lots of land, most of which is publically accessible. (All the bigs parks in Central London are part of the Royal Parks for example).

    It’s an archaic term, but the actual mechanism of how it works is pretty normal. If you’re going to argue that it’s undemocratic, then get it right: it’s undemocratic because you have land controlled by unelected officials in a national government agency rather than by elected local officials of a local authority.

  13. MikeN says:

    So they are replacing one scarce resource, fossil fuels, with an even more scarce resource land. Hopefully they have the breakdown rates low enough that this is economically viable.

  14. ghm101 says:

    #13 This is mostly offshore.
    too many nimbi types for land based wind power to get big here.

  15. jbenson2 says:

    It would be sweet to have a few of those strategically placed around the holier-than-thou Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite mansions.

  16. chuck says:

    Now read this:

    Scottish Government scuppers Lewis wind farm plan
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/21/lewis_wind_farm/

  17. @#4: It can be cheaper than existing sources, unless “enviro” types force years of litigation and “studies” on it. That is what have happened with the Long Island plan: investors wanted to build efficient and profit making system off-shore that would actually decrease LI price of KWh… After several years of litigations that have ended in a need for endless expensive “studies” – investors gave up.

  18. Tree Hugger says:

    But think of the poor birds who might run into this!

  19. the answer says:

    That big ass thing, and they couldn’t put an elevator inside. or even stairs?

  20. morbo says:

    33gigawatt goal. Thats 4400 brittania sized windmills. I hear the scots dont want them since they feel the mills interfere with the peat farming (a big export believe it or not).

  21. MikeN says:

    They grow coal?

  22. MikeN says:

    If wind gets any more successful, then the environmentalists will start to protest it. They really hate commerce.

  23. chuck says:

    And here’s why Ted Kennedy doesn’t want a windmill in his backyard:

  24. windmills blow says:

    Those who promote wind energy are blowing smoke. They are monstrosities that CONSUME LAND, destroy viewscapes, and are incredibly expensive, paid for by taxpayers mostly through corporate tax breaks and subsidies. When you calculate these factors into your “energy savings” you end up negative.

  25. OmegaMan says:

    33 JiggaWatts 😉

    To put things into perspective on what can be done with 1 GigaWatt for a short amount of time

    To Quote “Back to The Future”:

    Doc: “How could I have been so careless? 1.21 gigawatts! Tom, how am I gonna generate that kind of power? It can’t be done, can it?”

    Marty: “Doc, look. All we need is a little plutonium.”

    Doc: “Oh” I’m sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it’s a little hard to come by. Marty, I’m sorry, but I’m afraid you’re stuck here.”

  26. amodedoma says:

    Europe is leading the way. Americans are content with bitching endlessly about fuel and energy costs. Even if th USA ‘stabilizes’ the middle east there’s only so much of that stinky black stuff left. Perhaps if those BILLIONS of dollars spent to bring ‘peace’ to the middle east were spent on investigation of alternative energy… Nah, just an idea, the american scientific community is bought and paid for…
    BTW I’ve lived in Spain over 20 years and in the last 5 wind mills are popping up like daisies, I like their impact on the scenery.

  27. Billy Bob says:

    Actually the Crown Estate “is part of the heredity possessions of the Sovereign”, meaning it is a trust owned and ultimately controlled by the Queen. King George III agreed to give Parliament the excess rental profits from the lands in exchange for a stipend called the civil list. This deal can be renewed by each new monarch, which each succeeding one has chosen to.

    Note that in the event of the end of the monarchy, the Crown Estate would revert to private control. Any property appreciation ultimately flows to the owners via the trust.

    This arrangement is reminiscent of the Fed in the US, privately owned by the banking cartel but delivers a portion of its income to the Treasury.

    I refer you to the Crown Estate’s FAQ:

    http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

    “The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch”…The Government also does not own The Crown Estate.”

    In summary, the monarchy retained control of the properties by putting them into a trust and giving up rental income. Someday they’ll cash in on their multi-century investment.

  28. MikeN says:

    Wind plants generate electricity when there is wind, which is more likely to be when the electricity isn’t needed. They need to figure outhow to store this electricity cheaply.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5535 access attempts in the last 7 days.