MHI Vestas production area

New Vestas production company named preferred bidder for Navitus Bay wind farm

This in from the council, in their own words. Ed


The Isle of Wight Council has welcomed the news that MHI Vestas Offshore Wind (a joint venture between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Vestas) has been named as the preferred supplier of wind turbines for the Navitus Bay Offshore Windfarm.

The 80 meter blades for the V164-8MW wind turbines have been developed and tested on the Isle of Wight at Vestas’s technical centre, located at Stag Lane, near Newport by the River Medina. The blade entered production at the MHI Vestas Wind site, also located at Stag Lane, earlier this year.

Councillor Jonathan Bacon, leader of the Isle of Wight Council, said:

“This is fantastic news for the Isle of Wight and further confirms our reputation as a centre of excellence for offshore renewable energy. This will create a significant number of long term quality jobs for the Island – not just at MHI Vestas Offshore Wind, but also among the wide range of Island supply companies.

“The Isle of Wight Council has been a strong supporter of the Navitus Bay project from day one, recognising that, as well as the windfarm being a significant supplier of sustainable renewable energy; it had the potential to bring a significant benefit to our economy. Today that faith has been vindicated, and we look forward to working with Navitus Bay and MHI Vestas Offshore Wind to ensure a successful project and long term economic benefit to the Island. The council’s Solent Offshore Renewable Energy Consortium (SOREC) project was set up to enable such an opportunity. They have been working alongside Navitus Bay and MHI Vestas Offshore Wind for some time now, developing the local supply chain.”

Councillor Shirley Smart, Isle of Wight Council Executive member for economy and tourism, said:

“Following today’s news, the council is looking forward to securing further investment on the Island, particularly in relation to the ongoing maintenance of the proposed offshore wind farm.

“The next opportunity this project offers is the port to act as the operations and maintenance base for the offshore windfarm. The council has been working with the Yarmouth Harbour Commissioners in championing Yarmouth as the operations and maintenance port for the scheme and we believe today’s announcement , through the local links, strengthens their case.

“Growing the economy is one of the council’s key priorities and we will do what we can to support this high value, important and expanding sector.”

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
37 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vix
21, May 2015 1:18 pm

Brilliant news. As Shirley states – the next step is now ensuring that Yarmouth is the engineering and maintenance hub for the project.

Bournemouth (council and MPs) appears to be shunning Navitus and even campaigning against the project. Whereas we on the Island recognise not only the employment benefits, but the clean and green renewable energy that will be produced.

Billy builder
21, May 2015 1:47 pm

It might well be good news that an isle of wight based company has been awarded this contract assuming that is that the project ever gets the green light. However, is offshore wind a good way of generating power. Construction and maintenance costs will be massive. Coupled with that the coastal vista will be blighted by hundreds of wind turbines. The town of Yarmouth (if it becomes… Read more »

Caconym
Reply to  Billy builder
21, May 2015 4:47 pm

Onshore wind would be a better bet for maintenance, but the nimbyati have put pay to that idea, and wind is more reliable offshore.

ThomasC
Reply to  Caconym
21, May 2015 6:33 pm

Technically the solar PV installs put paid to on-shore turbines by the simple mechanism of not being contentious, being installed and now providing capacity generating for the IW grid, as it is currently set up.

Oh and they didn’t make a huge, ostentatious impact on the horizon, unlike on-shore turbines would have.

John Nash
Reply to  Caconym
21, May 2015 7:17 pm

On 5th April, National Grid data showed that the entire UK “fleet” of windfarms produced just 0.3 % of the load for part of the day and below 1% for the entire 24 hour period. There were no blackouts because of gas, coal-fired and nuclear generating capacity, plus a little help from the French (mainly nuclear) and Netherlands interconnectors.

No problems then!

vix
Reply to  John Nash
21, May 2015 7:35 pm

You do realise that no government, no party and no leaders believe we should have 100% of power from wind? It’s about conserving our fossil fuels for what they do best – petro chemicals and currently vehicles – and investing more money in research and in large infastructure projects such as hydro and tidal. There’s no real future in digging out fossil fuels and burning them in… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  vix
21, May 2015 7:53 pm

The data speak for themselves!

ewald
Reply to  John Nash
21, May 2015 7:46 pm

A study of big Construction Projects in Germany reveals for the first time Wind parks are cheaper to build as Nuclear Power stations

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/offshore-windparks-sind-langfristig-guenstiger-als-akws-a-1033915.html

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
21, May 2015 8:10 pm

And much safer. And not consuming a finite nuclear fuel supply.

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
21, May 2015 9:01 pm

France generate about 80% of their electricity needs using nuclear power. There is no way that off-shore wind could come anywhere close to matching that capacity, or producing power at anything like the cost. Hydro, wave power, tidal stream, tidal barrage or any other variant there of will never come close to meeting this countries energy needs. Except maybe if we recreated half a dozen or so… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
21, May 2015 11:00 pm

Agreed on producing solar energy using roofs (& suitable walls) not farm land that should be used for food production, and the present need for nuclear; but we should also invest in on & off shore wind, and reducing nuclear as fast as we can. The French also use wind. They will also have to deal with nuclear waste safety for thousands of years, & will eventually… Read more »

billy builder
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 7:02 am

Steve, Off-shore is hideously expensive and nowhere near as green as one might expect. For every 20 or so wind turbines a mile or two off-shore you will need one fully equipped maintenance vessel which will be on site every day carrying out maintenance and repairs and consuming tonnes of fuel each year. So for a wind farm of say 200 blades you’ll need a fleet of… Read more »

Vix
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 7:35 am

There are many, many forms of renewable energy generation which are not ‘at the whims of the weather’ (we have weather every day…) Hydro, tidal barrages, tidal turbines, geothermal – we have geothermal in Southampton. We have to build Combined Heat and Power station with every power station too to lessen waste. And wind and wave and solar all have a place to play. BB – you… Read more »

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 8:45 am

Vix, firstly I would suggest that your views on this matter are very much in the minority, whilst there might be many millions sharing your views there will be hundreds of millions, if not billions sharing mine. Each and every power generation method has an impact. For nuclear and fossil fuels that impact is well known. Lets take just a few of your suggested methods:- Geothermal :… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 9:59 am

The high cost of offshore wind power still compares well with the cost of heavily subsidised fossil & nuclear; more so when the cost of damage, clean-up, & the rising costs of failing to deal with the problem are included. I recently heard Nicholas Stern say that fossil fuel subsidy now amounts to about £5 trillion per year; even the IMF admit to £3.4tn, or $10 million… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 10:27 am

Peak oil was a minority view when (oil industry scientist) Hubbert first spoke about it, and for decades afterwards. Not any more. The finite supply of fossil & nuclear fuel can no longer be denied or ignored, nor can their dirty, damaging, dangerous impact. Other options can & must be used where possible & appropriate. Geothermal, for example, provides all the heating in Iceland despite their exciting… Read more »

Vix
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 10:55 am

BB – of course every method of generation power has pros and cons. They all do. But putting all eggs in the Nuclear and Fossil Fuel basket is not progressive. We need progressive energy solutions.

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 11:39 am

Vix, I don’t disagree with you, we should not put all our eggs in one basket. We should use a sensible mix between Nuclear , some hydro and maybe some tidal barrage for the base load, with on-shore wind and PV as supplementary load. We should use excess capacity to produce hydrogen for fuel cell driven vehicles. We should develop nuclear power using fast breeder technology in… Read more »

ewald
Reply to  John Nash
21, May 2015 8:21 pm

the data of the UK is more as encouraging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

the Isle of Wight could harvest and sell electricity similar to the two Norway – Germany projects

ewald
Reply to  ewald
21, May 2015 8:25 pm

NorGer and NordLink projects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorGer

Cicero
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 11:39 am

Where will the Island’s hydro power come from? PYEC maybe but AFAIK Norway has only one tidal project actually producing at the moment.

Unlike Norway, there are not many major waterfalls around here that generate similar levels of electricityto those exported by Norway. :-)

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 11:48 am

Norway is also a very sparsely populated country with a very long west facing sea border that lends itself to on-shore wind. So low local demand coupled with ample supply of wind power allows them to export energy. The same factors do not exist for the UK

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 12:53 pm

Actually they do while Scotland is part of the UK.

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 1:20 pm

No they don’t. The population of the uk is 65M, population of norway is 5M. Length of uk west coast 5000 km Norway 13000 km.

ewald
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 2:38 pm

@cicero its the contract between both countries and how they sell to each other and how they pay for there consumption… ..you can for instance sell your on the roof in Germany produced Solar energy into the grid to Norway and the other way around… contracts between countries with such magnitude can take over 10 years to materialise (China- Switzerland free trade agreement) so its important to… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  ewald
22, May 2015 5:12 pm

Scotland’s population is also about 5m; shorter western coastline than Norway but more than enough for worthwhile on/offshore wind power. Very good hydro generation as well; good sea power R&D; even a very high proportion of ‘UK’ coal,gas, & oil reserves. If/when Scotland separates, our stats. will worsen significantly.

Billy builder
Reply to  ewald
23, May 2015 8:20 am

Steve, the point being discussed was whether or not the UK, could become a net exporter of electricity produced by wind like Norway, not just Scotland. However if you wish to compare Scotland capacity to produce green electricity with that of Scotland, then you’re still comparing apples with pears. Norways west facing coast line where wind generation would be most effective is 10 times longer than Scotland.… Read more »

The Sciolist
21, May 2015 8:31 pm

Didn’t this firm (Vestas) take huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the past and then fail to deliver what was promised? What’s to stop them doing it again, (and again) answer? My own view is the same as John Nash’s. Talk of wind is just hot air, you can’t rely on it. The cost is astronomic too, not that the pro lobby believe the sums don’t add… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  The Sciolist
21, May 2015 10:41 pm

? What doesn’t add up is relying for energy on something finite as if it wasn’t. And doing so knowing that it is also damaging our climate and the ecosystem we evolved in. Wind power can be relied on to provide some (but obviously not all) of our energy needs. The cost of wind power is justifiable, unlike the cost of failing to clean up our act… Read more »

Tanja Rebel
21, May 2015 11:35 pm

The offshore wind farm is too close to this World Heritage coast line and the wind turbines far too big. The placement is essential here: Move the turbines further out or put them along a less historic (tourism attractive) coastline. I know I am going to get a lot of stick for this, but fact remains that sustainable solutions need to take into account their aesthetic value… Read more »

Tanja Rebel
22, May 2015 8:00 am

The Navitus Bay wind turbines are too near to this World Heritage Coast and too big. So much could be won by making them smaller and putting them further away. Even sustainable solutions need to take into account their aesthetic impact, if only because there will be less opposition that way. I know I am going to get a lot of stick for saying this as aesthetics… Read more »

milly
Reply to  Tanja Rebel
22, May 2015 9:52 am

“Talk of wind is just hot air”, I like that one,Sciolist. Vix,coal is not just for energy you can use it for making steal for instance. Britain’s biggest natural resources are coal and iron ore, much of which sits in the ground doing nothing. There is such a thing as “Carbon Capture” and you can produce coal gas efficiently and effectively using tested technology that is far… Read more »

milly
Reply to  milly
22, May 2015 9:57 am

sorry “steel”.

Vix
Reply to  milly
22, May 2015 10:57 am

Absolutely Milly – like I said earlier, we need to use our fossil fuels (finite resource) for what they are best at and what we cannot replace them eg petro chemicals and of course as a source of carbon.

CCS is a great initiative – but it’s far from technologically feasible on a large scale at the moment. It needs investment too.

John Yelland
22, May 2015 11:13 am

I am much encouraged by this blog; plenty of well informed comment, and even the less well informed comment is clearly well meaning. The fundamental problem with wind, offshore or onshore, is its unreliability; it is intermittent and unpredictable. The National Grid already has to cope with a highly variable but at least partly predictable demand for electricity. The output of fossil fuelled generators is varied to… Read more »