Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Why Blades Fail Early w/ Morten Handberg of WInd Power LAB
Wind Power LAB’s blade expert Morten Handberg explains a critical wind industry problem: new turbine blades are failing years too early. These massive blades – now stretching over 100 meters – are experiencing unexpected structural damage due to complex aerodynamic forces. Handberg shares Wind Power LAB’s essential strategies for detecting and preventing these costly blade failures before they shut down your turbines.
Fill out our Uptime listener survey and enter to win an Uptime mug! Register for Wind Energy O&M Australia! https://www.windaustralia.com
Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!
Pardalote Consulting – https://www.pardaloteconsulting.com
Weather Guard Lightning Tech – www.weatherguardwind.com
Intelstor – https://www.intelstor.com
Allen Hall: As wind turbines reach unprecedented heights and blade lengths stretch beyond 100 meters, unexpected challenges are emerging from the field. This week we welcome back Morten Handberg. The renowned Blade Whisperer from Wind Power LAB. In this eye-opening discussion, Morten reveals why modern blade designs are showing structural issues earlier than expected and what operators need to watch for to protect their turbines.
Stay tuned.
Welcome to Uptime Spotlight, shining Light on Wind Energy’s brightest innovators. This is the Progress Powering tomorrow.
Allen Hall: Morten, welcome back to the show.
Morten Handberg: Thanks, Allen. It’s great to be, be back again.
Allen Hall: You are one of our most popular guests. You are the Blade Whisperer. And any time I’m at a trade show, people ask, how’s Morten doing? How’s the Blade Whisperer doing? Like, well, Morten’s great. Morten’s super busy, but Morten is great.
And they want to have you back on. So here we are. We’re back on again. And. The topic of today’s discussion is about aerodynamic stresses that happen to blades, and we’re seeing more problems with that than some of the quality issues. I think it’s a combination of quality and aerodynamic issues. What is happening in the field right now with aerodynamic loading on some of these new, longer, more flexible blades?
Morten Handberg: Well, it’s, it’s something that’s been been happening over time. So if we look 10, 15 years back, then the blades were of course shorter. The and they were a lot stiffer than they were today. They were heavily reinforced and you could say maybe they were. They were under optimized that they had a lot more load capacity and that were then what they needed.
And, and in, in process of the, in, in, as the blades have been become longer than the, then that buffer have gone away, so, because the, in order to build a logger blade, you had to reduce the the, the thickness of your laminates to avoid an overly, you know, bulky structure, but something that could harness the wind in a more efficient way So that leads to slender, thinner blades that are a lot softer.
And we can see that in the natural frequency that the, that the flap wise and edge wise frequencies, they have kind of gone down. And that’s because the blades become softer. And that also means that the way that the blade behaves with the wind direction means that the gravity loads are still a major, a major component, but Aeroelastic loading, which adds to shear and torsion loads, have become much more prominent loading conditions on the blades that we see today.
Allen Hall: That’s interesting. Yeah, obviously the blades are lighter than they ever been for the length. I remember being at DTU a year or so ago and looking at one of the first offshore wind blades that Vestas had made, and it was beautiful. back into DTU’s laboratory being examined. And that blade was so stiff and so overdesigned that it could have lasted, it had, it could last another 20 years.
It had been out in service for 20 years. It could have lasted easily another 20, maybe another 30 years because of the way it was designed, how stiff it was, how short it was. It was like a 20 meter blade. It wasn’t that big. But today when we’re talking 60, 80, 100 meters, those blades are just Dynamically different.
Is it a combination of just trying to lower the cost of the blade or just the mere fact that the weight is so high? We’re trying to transport it. What’s driving down the margins here in terms of the blade design and making them a lot more flexible?
Morten Handberg: Well, it is, it is an effective of well, by increasing the length, you also increases the power that you can harness from the blade.
You know, that so, so it is a, it is a desire to create larger turbines and one of the. Easiest ways to do that is simply by making the blade longer because you have to, it, you can do it. It’s, it’s compared to increasing the sweat barrier or optimizing. And in other ways, it is a, it is a low hanging fruit and by lowering the rate of the blades, you can also live with a lighter drive train, less steel in the tower, smaller foundation.
So all of these things play in into why that the blade is such a, so much in focus in terms of. Driving down cost overall is by reducing the the weight of the blades. And that comes as a consequence of it being more it, yeah, it has, has less design buffer and it also will have less lifetime compared to the, to the more conservative blades that we’ve seen before.
You can say that, you know, some of the two megawatt turbines, I wouldn’t be surprised if you can from a blade perspective that you can, you know elongate the lifetime to 30, 40 years, because they’re, they’re so conservatively designed compared to what we see today.
Allen Hall: Okay, so adding a kilogram to a blade has consequences all the way down to the foundation, which makes sense when you say it.
Okay, so that just adds cost and complexity to every other component in that wind turbine. So the drive then is to lighten the blades and also lengthen the blades at the same time. Now, when we do that, I, as I talk to operators around the world, they come back and say to me, okay, yeah, sure we’re using longer blades, of course it creates more power, but they’re all being qualified.
They’re all being tested, right? So we shouldn’t have anything to worry about what they’re in service. Has the test standards kept up with the rapid design changes that have been made? Not at all.
Morten Handberg: As I said before, you know, gravity loads was the predominant load on all the blades. And that was also what did.
Testing and certification standards focused on. And that’s still what it’s, what’s being, being done today. There are, you know more being done on hybrid loading, combining stepwise and edgewise, but that’s still gravity based loads. We’re not taking into account aeroelastic loads when, when, when testing and certifying, but that’s all only done in simulation.
And then we learn about what have, what’s happening in, in operation. In operation. So. So the testing and certification has not kept up with the with, with the load conditions that are, that, that, that we see on, on the modern blade.
Allen Hall: So I have a existing OEM that I like using, and I just want to go to the next generation of wind turbines, which is what is happening today.
That design of that new wind turbine may not have the same robustness as the one you are used to using, particularly if you’d let 5, 10 years go by. And so then if you’re thinking about the blade design, you’re trying to evaluate blade design, you really don’t have the data in front of you then. If they haven’t tested that for torsional loading, aero loading effects, you really don’t know what the history of that blade will be.
Just because you don’t have the data, right? You
Morten Handberg: have no idea what the, what the fatigue lifetime is from these new combined loads and, and we are seeing, you know blades, structural blade damages, blade failures happening on, on wind farms. From a variety of wind turbine types, where there is no, no, no sign of manufacturing defects, there is no lightning strike, there is no sign of transport damage or failed repair.
So, you know, it’s very difficult to prove exactly what kind of load it is without having the exact model or having other kinds of other types of data. But, you know, When leaving everything out, then you are starting to think about, is there something, some load condition going on here since we’re seeing these buckling related failures in areas where they, the blade simply shouldn’t shouldn’t have any kind of structural damage.
We’re seeing a lot on On on shell sandwich panels where we, where we see deformation the damage and related to deformation defects. And very early on, actually, you know the blades are designed for 25 years, but in a wind farm, we can see, you know, multiple blades with long transverse cracks over the, over the, the, the shell panels, and there’s nothing to suggest any kind of manufacturing issue.
otherwise that would have allowed for this defect to develop. And that’s again, one of the, one of the things that I think we need, we need to be mindful of with these new, new turbines. So how prevalent is this issue? What should I be looking for in the field? The need for inspection. We’ve been saying this for many years, also for the older blades, but it’s, Absolutely equally true.
So you need to do, at least yearly inspection, maybe in the early years, do it a bit more often, you know, and do both internal and external because whatever you see on the outside, on the outside will likely have started on the inside. So doing an internal inspection is a really really important in order to, to capture the defects in time.
And, and we need to look again, what we’re looking for is not, not different from what we did on, on the traditional blade. It, they just develop earlier and faster. So, so looking for, for structural cracks, looking for debonding, that’s typically what you would see. It just develops in the shield laminates.
I am less concerned about beam structures in the new blades than I was before. Gravity loads are pretty well understood and the spar caps and, and beam structures, they’re there to handle those kinds of loads. So they’re not really as concerned anymore. If you have manufacturing defects, you know, wrinkles in them, that’s still a problem, of course, but when we’re talking just.
Pure, you know, operation, lifetime fatigue, then it’s the shell structures that, that, that we need to have more, more in focus, which is, you know, opposite because earlier, you know, the shell was rarely something we even considered as an important part of the structure. So it was now rarely in focus because we never redesigned the defects.
They aren’t like, unless they were made to lightning strike or otherwise, but they have started to, to show the defects early on. And that’s because that’s the weak structure. That’s the weak structure from aerodynamic loads.
Allen Hall: Okay, that’s interesting. So we’re seeing more failures early on, probably within the warranty period in a lot of blades, but they’re showing up where they normally wouldn’t show up.
So if I’m an operator, I may not even be looking for this because I wouldn’t assume that the, the shells are the weak point necessarily. I would look for more internal structure issues. What I think is The general method of inspection right now is going to get to the structure. So, if you’re looking for changes in core or wrinkles on the outside of these blades in places that you would not normally normally see them, that’s your first alarm bell that maybe this is not a des necessarily a design issue as, as much as an error load issue that wasn’t evaluated during the qualification phase.
Exactly.
Morten Handberg: I mean, you would do simulations from the OEM, but, but, you know, are they, are they accurate enough compared to the wind loads that we’re seeing out there? And with the buffer gone, then, you know, you might, you might do a simulation for a certain set of certain conditional wind loads, depending on your wind class.
But is that actually then equivalent to, to the, to the low conditions we see on site? Is ice loading really considered? You know, ice loading in a gravity, from a gravity sense load, that’s not that big of an issue. They can handle that. But when you change the the inertia of the blades, then you also change the airline, the, the, the share and the torsion load.
And again, the shell structures and areas that are, that are. susceptible to that kind of loading, they might see then an overloading that you otherwise wouldn’t have.
Allen Hall: I want to ask maybe a controversial question here because I’ve been intrigued about this. When I see a lot of these longer, newer blades being installed offshore and they’re failing, it seems to happen during the construction phase when they’re not in operation.
Is that because the Turbines maybe not be pointing in the right direction. The yaw is not engaged and maybe you have two or the three blades on or something that the aero loading is then different than what it would be in operation, which is creating unique conditions that overload the basic design of the blade.
Is that the philosophy is what’s happening in offshore right now?
Morten Handberg: I mean, any kind of loading that is where the yaw where the yaw is off. So the wind is not coming directly towards the blade. is a, is a problematic situation on any account because the blades are designed for the, for the heaviest load coming, you know, from the front of blade leading edge inward.
But having loads coming in, you know, from it on the on the, on the pressure side, suction side shell or the trailing it can create load conditions or can create vibration conditions that cause the blade to go into resonance. which can lead to very rapid failures. I guess that, you know, that they can be your situations that don’t necessarily lead to a blade failure.
That’s fine. But again, we’re flying blind if we’re just allowing the turbine to get wind directions from backwind, sidewind, all of that, then we don’t really know when and if, you know, the, the, that we reach a critical situation. So I would always be concerned. And you could also say, well, the blade was yards 15 or 50 degrees off from and, but the blade didn’t break.
So obviously the turbine was designed for that. That’s not true. You could have just created an overload situation that meant that you shaved off, you know, a few years or five years of your lifetime. That doesn’t show as an immediate defect, but you, but the blade was still fatigued more than it was supposed to.
So you, you lost a lot of lifetime in that event, but it didn’t break. But that’s still an issue.
Allen Hall: Oh yeah, it definitely is. So weather forecasting during the construction phase is becoming critical then.
Morten Handberg: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s always been an issue, you know, that, you know, when the, when the rotary is locked that, you know, you need to get the turbine installed and commissioned as fast as possible.
So it can, it can start to operate as it’s, as it’s supposed to be. But with. Lower design margins problem have have increased in significance. You could say
Allen Hall: that would explain some onshore things that I’ve seen also. All right. This, this is fascinating. So we have a problem out in the field. It’s really early still.
What are some of the approaches to deal with it? Obviously inspection, probably more frequent inspection, probably during the warranty period, cause it’s going to happen earlier. But what are the, some of the things that Winpower LAB and you are recommending right now?
Morten Handberg: So we’re, we’re recommending at least yearly inspection.
And there are, you know, there are some turbines, wind farms that are receiving, inspections two times every year. Some even more often depending on what kind of conditions that they’re seeing. All of that makes a lot of sense because until we have some more data on how, on, on how these defects develop and what we’re seeing, then, you know, it, it is important to have, to have a data set because we’re, we’re dealing with a new generation of turbines where we don’t have a lot of historical data to lean on, on, on how defects would develop or, Under what circumstances.
So having more frequent inspections is something that we do recommend. And, you know, or previously we would recommend an end of warranty inspection and that would be fine, you know, that, you know, then you’re pretty much good to go, but, but today, you know, it’s, you should, if you’re, if you’re building a new wind farm today, you should do yearly inspections from day one in order to, to, to to avoid critical failures, at least.
Allen Hall: Let me ask you this question, and I’ve heard it discussed on certain wind farms, large wind farms, where in windy areas, when the blades are even on the ground. Is there a chance that those blades can get torsional loading that is unnatural or that it wouldn’t like to see and could decrease a lifetime?
Morten Handberg: It’s actually an interesting, an interesting topic. I mean, when the blades are being transported, when they’re in storage, they are still introduced to to, to wind to winds, right? So there is still an interaction with the wind. That can create its own set of vibrations. It might not be the same resonance that you would, that you would see on a, on a, on an erected turbine, but it still is a factor.
It’s really not well understood how much of an impact it has on the lifetime of the blade the storage conditions and something, you know, early on, it was just not considered. And again, that would, that would have been completely fair because the blades were stiffer. They were more robustly designed but today it might actually matter.
But I think right now we can’t really say anything with certainty, but you know, yeah, it is something to look out for. I would definitely say that, but it’s not something I can add a lot of details to, unfortunately, because it’s, it’s something we’re still, you know, trying to figure out what, what it actually means for, for, for the blade.
Allen Hall: Well, would that explain why some of the OEMs and some independent inventors are coming up with these sock designs that go over the blade for a significant portion, probably the outer third of the blade, to disrupt the airflow over the blade so it’s not creating lift and maybe not creating torsion in the blade?
I’ve seen a lot more of those. Recently is, is that the rationale for those?
Morten Handberg: It is, it is definitely a part of the rationale or something we’ve seen also during construction that they were, they were applied and that it’s typically something you would do if you, if you know, as a constructor, that a high wind system is coming in that is without within the limit that can cause edgewise via vibration.
Then you can apply one of these socks or nets or however they look. And that will, that will create a disruption of the blade. So it’s not allowed to move as freely as it, as it would, if it had just been on its own. So that is absolutely something, but yeah, it, it, yeah. I mean, they are, of course, if you can prevent the blade failure, it’s absolutely worth it.
But you have to be mindful, you know, it’s, it’s something that adds to the cost. It, it’s not, it’s not a, it’s not a trivial thing just to apply a 50 meter Saco over a blade, not at all. And what we’ve seen in, in, in Scandinavia where we have icing conditions is that ice can actually then start to build up on, on, on the net and start, you know, hammering in on the, on the blade.
And that can create some structural damages on it, on it, on its own. I would. in general argue that, you know, these damages are lesser than what you would have suffered as if you had seen resonance from edge wise vibrations. The problem is though that then instead of having, you know, a few cases of a really damaged blade, you then see a wide sweep of damages across your entire fleet suddenly because these nets pick up a lot of things and and create some some damages to the blade on their own.
So, It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a solution to a, to a problem that, that we do recognize that we do know no, no, no one knows there. So yeah I, I would probably still apply them if it was, if I was the owner. But I would also, you know, open my eyes to that. Okay, doing this, but I’m also looking into a repair campaign afterwards anyway.
That’s just, you know, to be expected, especially if you’re in Scandinavia. And I presume some of the, you know, Canada and some of the Midwestern states, they would have similar conditions.
Allen Hall: They do. Does continuous monitoring systems play into this detection at all? Can they pick up some of these aero loading effects, the vibrational effects, in them and detect what they are and give an early warning that maybe you have a problem?
Morten Handberg: You can absolutely see if something is going on. So, so I mean, I would generally say any kind of condition monitoring is better than no condition monitoring. Obviously if we want to learn about blade, the blade behavior that we have, that, that, that, that we have within the wind farm, we want to have sophisticated detection of damages early on.
And we, if we want to get to a point where we can understand, What kind of wind conditions actually drive lifetime fatigue? Then we need to go for a more sophisticated system that monitors vibration or loads or otherwise. But right now, you know, it’s, it’s. Condition monitoring is not a given, and I think for older turbines, it’s definitely a good value proposition, but it’s really essential for the newer ones because we can, because if you have some kind of damage detection, there’s some, some kind of condition monitoring you can, you can prevent that you suffer from a complete blade failure.
Not a perfect system. There can still happen things, but your, but your risk is lower significantly. But I would, if you’re, if you’re, if you’re, if you have a larger set of turbines and you want to go into more how do you say proactive operation maintenance and understand what yeah, what, what kind of things are actually driving the damages that I’m seeing.
You need to have a really sophisticated either by vibration sensor or low load sensor that can tell you, well, I got this damage and this was how, but this, this is how the blade behaved before before, before the event or during these kind of wind conditions, my vibration signal is tripling or quadrupling.
And, and this is something that is that is driving the, my, my, my lifetime,
Allen Hall: fatigue. I want to tap into that Lifetime piece, Morten, if Blades are not properly aligned in pitch, or they have a lot of leading edge erosion where the, the air flow over a significant portion of the blade is not normal, not based on what the engineers had on their computer at the time.
Does that change error loading enough where I start to worry as blades age that the error loading is changing and that I may then induce Vibrations or loads later on in life that I maybe wouldn’t have seen in year one or two. And do I need to be monitoring for that also?
Morten Handberg: If you have leading edge erosion, then you are creating more turbulence around your blade.
So from a logical perspective, I would say, yeah, that is something that is driving load. I would assume, I would assume that if it, what the magnitude is, that’s difficult to predict again without having any kind of load condition monitoring. Then. Where, yeah, we, we, we have no way of quantifying this.
So that, and that’s also why it’s so important that we, because that it becomes more of a, a must have instead of a nice to have these kind of monitoring system. And I would say that both for lightning, but also, but especially for condition monitoring, given, given what, what, what, what, what we’re seeing in the industry today.
Allen Hall: Wow, there’s a lot happening in blade design at the minute and then out in the field. It sounds like we have to be more vigilant than ever with these new designs. So Morten, this is fascinating because I’ve learned a ton here and I’m trying to absorb it all. So I’m going to watch this episode on YouTube probably several times after we complete it just to, you know, Learn all the things you’re trying to explain to me because I’m an electrical person.
A lot of people you get out in the field also are mechanically inclined. They’re not aerodynamically inclined. They’re not blade structures people. If they want to get a deeper understanding of what’s happening and get some insights from you, how do they do that?
Morten Handberg: You can reach me at well, I would say Intim, not anytime, but you can reach me at Wind Power LAB and we’re always happy to set up a meeting or or call with people.
Owners or insurers who want to learn more about the the blade problems that they’re, they’re facing. And in wind power, we’re all about, you know, knowledge sharing and about raising the bar in the industry so that, you know, we all progressively, you know, learn what it is actually that we have to deal with for the next 25 years.
And I think if we can do that. We also, we have a chance that these newer turbines, that they are, we can, we can, we can increase the lifetime compared to what we would likely look into if we don’t. Yeah, as you say, become more vigilant in our approach to operation and maintenance.
Allen Hall: So you need to reach out to windpowerlab. com. That’s their website. A lot of great information on that website, windpowerlab. com. And you can reach out to Morten via LinkedIn. He’s available. He’s on there. Just reach out to Morten Handberg. Morten, thank you so much for being on the podcast. I really appreciate you coming back. You are our official Blade Whisperer.
Love having you on. Fantastic being here and thank you so much.
https://weatherguardwind.com/blades-fail-wind-power-lab/
Renewable Energy
ECO TLP Brings Concrete Foundations to Floating Wind
ECO TLP Brings Concrete Foundations to Floating Wind
Nicole Johnson Murphy, CEO of ECO TLP, and Gordon Jackson join to discuss concrete floating wind foundations, production-line construction, and markets from Hawaii to Japan.
Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on YouTube, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!
Welcome to Uptime Spotlight, shining Light on Wind. Energy’s brightest innovators. This is the progress powering tomorrow.
Allen Hall: Offshore wind obviously is a big deal right now. There’s a lot of, uh, countries looking at it and investigating it, doing it, uh, but not really at scale yet. And this is where ECO TLP comes in and. Nicole, let’s just start there with a background. What problem were you trying to solve when you started Eco TLP?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Yeah, so, so we were designing for, uh, a site off of Hawaii in 2011, uh, for the Hico RFP. And so we were designing for 300 meter water depth from the beginning. Um, so we were always trying to find a way to work with the ports, with the vessel, with the infrastructure that was existing off Hawaii. And with, and that worked with Jones Act vessels.
So we were always trying to meet that [00:01:00] requirement with, you know, and meet the cost, try to, we saw there were much tighter margins in offshore wind than in oil and gas, for example, at that water depth. So we’re trying to find something that was cost effective.
Allen Hall: Next question, obviously is what makes those deep water foundations so difficult?
Gordon Jackson: Well, it’s the water depth, uh, primarily, um, you know, uh, you need to put foundations down in, uh, extremely deep water. Um, and they’re gonna be pretty flexible. Um, so you’re trying to control the, the amount of motion that you get at the surface through your, uh, uh, you know, your deep water, uh, facility. So, um, it’s really.
Really that challenge, you know, and, uh, you know, the weight of components through the water depth, like, um, you know, likes of chain would be completely impossible. Um, in 300 meters of water. Uh, you need to use something that’s a little bit lighter. Yeah, to mow you to the, uh, to the seabed
Allen Hall: [00:02:00] because it does seem a little odd just not to make the foundations taller, basically.
More steel drive it down in, we know that process, we understand that process. It works offshore, uh, near shore in a, in a lot of locations. But once you get to what depth as it becomes financially or engineering wise, impossible
Gordon Jackson: for offshore wind, fixed, fixed structures in, I mean, maybe a hundred meters of water are gonna be.
Economic. Um, but you know, they’ll be costly compared to what’s been done now because, uh, you know, of all the extra structure you need for the, uh, for the deeper water. But, uh, I think you’ll see, you know, a crossover between fixed and floating, you know, around the, um, you know, 70 to a hundred meter water mark.
You know, that’s sort the range.
Allen Hall: Well, and that leads to the next question, which is. It’s all financial, right? At some point, the numbers [00:03:00] don’t work. If the cost of foundations don’t come down, especially in fixed bottom offshore or floating offshore, we lose a lot of offshore wind resource. Uh, Nicole can, can you gimme a scale at what we’re missing if we don’t get to a more economical solution for floating offshore?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: So we’ve estimated for our market for, um, a very deep water market. So we, we now actually have a, a solution that goes across all water depths. So we’re starting with, um, you know, this, this gravity based structure now with, and, and Gordon’s team has been really involved in that, uh, development. And then now we can take that same slip form, concrete cylinder.
Format and take it across all the water depths. So, so we basically can hit every water depth now for a very low cost. It’s a very simple, just, you know, local, regionally designed and built, uh, system. We, we crowdsource the labor and the inputs. Um, and so we [00:04:00] try to, and we also try to give the procurement team of our clients their, you know, an ability to do their job and, and be able to bid out aspects of our design, um, across.
Different vendors. So you always wanna give, in construction, you always wanna give, uh, the procurement team a job to do so they can actually get that price, keep that price down on the installation.
Allen Hall: Yeah, that’s a unique look that eco TOP is putting to this problem. Which is moving away from steel, which is expensive obviously, and it’s sort of difficult to transport at times to a more localized solution, which is concrete.
And thinking about the problem a little bit differently, does that open up a number of doors then in terms of the countries that can get involved in, in floating or near shore, uh, wind projects, but just because you’re driving the cost down?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Absolutely. And I’ll let Gordon speak to the ax. He’s worked. His whole career in offshore concrete.
But I think it’s, I think it’s a, it’s a great, it’s the only way we would do it. We actually have shipyards in our companies, our partners own [00:05:00]shipyards, and we, we just would never probably ex try to try to create this many units across the world and scale and steel. We’d only do concrete.
Gordon Jackson: Yeah. My first concrete project sort of broke the mold of how you do, uh, construction of concrete offshore structures.
Uh, it was entirely built within a dry dock and, uh. After we’d gone on and delivered that project, um, that was in the late eighties. I spent the next 10 years, uh, working on projects all around the world, looking at doing the same sort of thing in different countries. Um, because you, you only needed, you know, 10, 12 meters of water, um, at the shore and you could, um, build a structure and um, you know, get it out there in the water.
Um. It really opened up the market for, for offshore concrete structures that, uh, that, uh, first project that we did.
Allen Hall: So using that first project as leverage and knowledge of how to do these things, how much advantage [00:06:00] does concrete give you over steel?
Gordon Jackson: It, it’s difficult to say because it bends country to country.
Um, and, um, you know, quite often you’re competing against, um, you know, steel built in some, uh, very low cost fabrication countries. Um, so if you’re in a high cost, you know, high labor cost country, like, you know, I worked in Australia, um, and um, you know, the labor cost there was extremely high. So concrete wasn’t particularly cheap, but the overall solutions that we came up with, um, were cheap.
You know?
Allen Hall: So does that involve basically like slip forms or how are you, how are you thinking about that problem? Because it’s a huge engineering task and you only learn. By doing it on some level because all great plans, uh, always run into trouble as soon as you try to implement them. So you took all that previous knowledge and then applied it to this problem, and now you have, uh, uh, basically [00:07:00] trimmed or, or slimmed, uh, the design down into, you have a, a very economical model, even in more uneconomical economies because of labor laws and cost of labor and access and those kind of things.
What does that look like now? And what’s your thought process on, Hey, this is what it’s gonna look like? Can we get, uh, keyside, how do we do this and how do we keep this thing simple?
Gordon Jackson: Uh, well the key thing is we’re looking at, uh, a production line approach, which has been, you know, it’s tried and tested for, um, for marine, for marine concrete construction, you know, construction of key walls and um, and you know, the like, um, we’re using exactly that same system.
We’ve just been tried and tested to create a production line of, um, eco TLP units or eco GBS units where we’re building, you know, onshore and where we’re going from station to station, doing a task at each station. [00:08:00] So it’s exactly like a production line, um, you know, that you’re be familiar with and, you know, you load out the completed structure onto a, a barge, um, and then you.
Submerge that barge and your structure floats off and that’s, that’s the real key to getting the, uh, the economy from the, the concrete basis.
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Yeah, and I’ll say that the opex is really something we focus a lot on because it’s, it’s not just what you’re doing on the CapEx and the development and the port, it’s actually that 30 year lifetime maintenance.
And this is a, when you, we fully submerge our floater, which is basically inert in the ocean. It’s, it’s very eco-friendly with the ocean. There’s no paint, there’s no, you know, maintenance on the floater over the lifespan. You’re, you’re monitoring those, the moorings and the, the weight of any marine, you know, buildup on those moorings and things like that.
But generally it’s a very low maintenance solution and it’s very heavy and kind of like a comfortable car [00:09:00] ride for the turbine. It, it really has slow motions. It, it’s, um, almost like a, you know, a high skyscraper in the water. You know, you’re just the top of that skyscraper is moving a little bit. But you’re, um, you’re really giving it that comfortable, slow ride over its lifetime.
It’s not hitting a lot of turbulence, like a, a different type of odor.
Allen Hall: Yeah. It is a different concept, really, right? That you have this mass at the bottom and you have this mass at the top, which is the, the cell on the wind turbine. And if you can design it just right, everything dampens becomes stable.
Even in turbulent water. How long did it take you to figure out that aspect of the design? Because it does seem like a lot of projects hit a, an end point right there because the motion of the turbine is not good for the lifetime of the turbine.
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: We, we look at it as a, a kind of hybrid spar, CLP, so, so the original design came from my late father who was, who had designed echo fis for children’s [00:10:00] petroleum in the early.
Uh, late sixties, I guess. And, um, so he’d come from oil and gas and he’d come from that concrete, uh, construction background. And, and he is very comfortable with it. And I think, um, Gordon, that’s part of why I like working with Gordon. ’cause Gordon has that same, uh, sort of long-term view on, on these construction principles.
Um,
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: and I think that, that what we saw though is the margins are so different from oil and gas, and so you have to have almost a poor man’s TLP is what we would call it because it’s. It’s gotta be a very simple version of A TLP that can roll out in mass quantities. And, and as you know, coming up with a company that, you know, business plan, you’d wanna be able to, to really scale the business.
And so we had to come up with something that you can make. In different parts of the world at the same time, you’re not tied to one shipyard or one construction.
Allen Hall: Well, even in terms of ship usage, you’re going to reduce the size of the ship considerably. You’re not using big dedicated ships that are really [00:11:00] expensive to operate or to keep in the area, even just to have them there as a lot of money.
You’re thinking about, uh, a different design in terms of. Simple ships that you can find locally. How much does that really lower the cost of deployment?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Quite a lot actually. I, I mean, it depends on, you know, so the other, there’s this other, other aspect of installing the wind turbine on the foundation. So we have this fixed to fixed platform concept where you come further, a little bit further offshore and, and give you that, that draft depth that we need.
And then we have a fixed platform that just stays in place and, and we bring the turbines to it and, and float them out. It’s all a self floating. Unit, whether it’s the GBS that, um, Gordon’s been working with us and or the eco TLP. So we, so we we’re really independent of those large vessels. Um, for the most part, you know, we’re, we’re really try and then you, once you install the turbine, you can tow the entire unit out with two tugs.
Two to three tugs.
Allen Hall: That’s remarkable. So essentially because you [00:12:00] used, uh, a basic. Uh, Henry Ford type process to, to create these foundations and to think about the problem differently. Not only can you deploy it, uh, easier than a lot of things we’re doing right now on top of it, it works over a variety of depths and I think that’s a the hard thing for people to grasp because when we talk about offshore particularly start getting off the continental shelves here, you’re talking about.
More than a hundred meters typically of water. But you also have a, the gravity based system and the TLP system are all sort of interconnected into the basic philosophy. Can you, can you explain like the, the, the backbone of how that engineering works?
Gordon Jackson: Uh, well it’s essentially, it’s, um, we’re using the same structural form in both, both fixed and floating.
It’s, it’s basically, it’s two cylinders, uh, you know, one inside the other. A little bit of structure, which joins the two cylinders together. Um, that’s it.
Allen Hall: Gord, you make it sound so simple, but the, the [00:13:00]engineering is complicated to get to that point. And once you get to that level of, oh, that design actually works in a variety of depths, that opens up your customer base quite a bit.
Have you had inquiries from sort of nearshore people? Or fixed bottom people thinking like, whoa, I could actually save myself a bunch of time and money, which is the, the real limiting factor on offshore wind at the moment. Are you starting to see some momentum there that, uh, operators, developers are starting to rethink this problem and not just do what they did last week?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Absolutely. I mean, one of the ways we came about the g you know, taking the Ecot P and transforming it to the eco GBS was, was recommended by a client, was, you know, that was their, their ask actions. That’s, that’s always the best way to start. A product development cycle because, you know, somebody’s interested.
Um, and I think, you know, and part of the reason I found Gordon to work with early on in our, um, the life of our company is, is his background in, in GBS development. He did, he developed the gravitas, uh, GBS [00:14:00] 10 years ago. So I think we, we got lucky that our, uh, civil structural engineering partner with AUP was, was already really comfortable with, you know, looking at this.
Allen Hall: Um,
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: so I think that’s, that’s part of, you know, you always want the clients to be interested, you know, before you start investing. You know, you don’t wanna design a product that’s in your head or your, you know, in your, in your company lunchroom without a real ask for it.
Allen Hall: Right? And I, I think also you have a, once you have the engineering pretty well done and.
Obviously do now you’re trying to touch a number of countries and every culture has its own way of, of one of the construction business to do it slightly differently. South Korea does it different than Scotland, for example. You are working across cultures and trying to make the the same design. Uh, apply to all those different areas.
Are, have you learned [00:15:00] some things from that? Is it, are you able to basically set the same assembly line in every place? Or, or are there different, different kinds of concrete, different kinds of access, different kinds of ports that you have to deal with? What are those variables there that, that change the way you do business?
Gordon Jackson: All the characteristics, ports are, uh, you know, obviously different. Um, but you know, really you just need space. Um. And access to reasonably deep water. Um, you know, from, from that, uh, from that space. And, uh, you know, it can get surprisingly difficult to find that, um, certainly in the UK and, uh, you know, in Northern Europe, people wanna build marines and, uh, waterfront living, uh, rather than having, uh, you know, an industrial facility, uh, you know, on the doorsteps.
So, you know, in, you know, developed countries. Um. It can be hard to find that space. But, um, you know, in some, some parts of the world, you know, there’s lots of [00:16:00] space, um, available. Um, some good port facilities that can be, can be utilized. Uh, and then it’s just in, in all civil engineering works, you know, um, you go to do the job, you go wherever the job is, you mobilize there.
Um. You know, you put in the systems, uh, and equipment that you need to build, build a structure, and then normally you go away at the end of the job, you know, you hand it over to the client. Um, you know what, what, um, what would be good here is if we could set up some regional centers where you’ve done the, done the investment in the yard, um, and then you can, uh, you can amortize those costs of development over a number of projects.
Then you should start to see, uh, you know, real, real good cost savings.
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Just one thing, you know, our footprint of our, of our cylinders is about a third of the footprint of a semi sub, for example. So, [00:17:00] so our footprint on the land port is very small.
Allen Hall: Well, I think that makes sense because if you watch the fixed bottom projects, particularly in the United States.
The first thing they had to do is rebuild the ports. The ports weren’t set for the scale and so they needed to expand the ports. That means you have to acquire land, you’ve gotta develop it. There’s a lot of processes involved. ’cause you’re talking about city, state, and federal government being involved.
Obviously federal in the United States is a problem. Uh, so just getting the port developed was a huge process for. Fixed bottom. You’re thinking about that differently though, because the, the reduced amount of space, the, uh, you don’t have to be in a huge industrial area, but all obviously it would be nice, but you do run against that problem.
Are you thinking, uh, when you talk about regional centers, are you thinking kind of Mediterranean, west Coast, us, Australia, one in Japan? How do you think about that problem? Because. [00:18:00] Once you get a a site established, it does seem like because of the, how fast you can move these things around that it’ll become a pretty good job center for a lot of people.
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: Yeah. There’s a long-term maintenance, you know, crew that needs to be developed while we build these. Um, yeah, I think, I think, you know, it’s been a moving target of what’s really gonna develop in offshore wind. It’s like Lucy and Charlie Brown with football. I think we, we constantly try to, you know, get lined up to, to kick football and then it falls.
It’s more of the developers I, I feel for on that ’cause they’re these investing tremendous amount of money for these, these development sites. Um, so, you know, we are open to any, you know, we’ve been, we’ve looked at, um, some developers are looking at steel production and concrete production, you know, two different reports servicing.
An array and we’re really flexible. It doesn’t, doesn’t matter. When we first started on that Hawaii project, we were gonna do floating pla, you know, floating, um, [00:19:00] barges to slipform. And, and we talked about that with Arab. Some still this floating dock idea and, and submerging that dock. And it’s just a matter of finding the right, uh, a large enough, um, dock for that type of, so then you’re not even using the land base port.
You’re learn, you’re using kind of just to. Maybe a 400 foot frontage on the, on the, along the port.
Allen Hall: Well, that’s amazingly small, right? Because if you look at some of these ports right now that are doing, uh, fixed bottom offshore, they’re massive, they’re huge sites. You’re talking about something roughly a 10th of the scale to get the same end result, which is turbines in the water
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: for our part of it.
I mean, we still, you still have the components and, and those are, that’s a, it’s another logistical challenge, and so I understand why the ports are. Looking at a lot more lay down space and things, but you know, maybe at a certain point these components are so large that they just stay on a vessel and they, and we, we take them off of a vessel directly and load them in.
Allen Hall: Yeah, I think that’s one of the, the considerations [00:20:00] is do you really tie it to land in, in terms of needing a, a massive amount of space, acres of space, thousands of square meters of space. Do you need that or is this, or can you do it much more efficiently because that overhead adds up over time. Not only are you trying to save on, on the ships and the, especially the dedicated ships, you’re also looking at smaller footprints on shore and doing it a lot more economically.
What does that future look like now, because it does seem like we’re at a precipice where floating wind is no longer just being discussed. In theory, it’s, it’s going to be implemented. What are those next steps here for Eco TLP?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: So next week we’re headed to Tokyo, to Japan for the wind. Expo and, um, Eric is also presenting at the Asia Wind Offshore Show.
Um, I think we’re, you know, we’re, we’re good to learn. I mean, there’s just so much to learn about each culture, and I think this is something that, you know, Gordon and I’ve talked about in terms of these international [00:21:00] projects, you’ve, you’ve gotta understand your culture that you’re moving into and you’ve gotta understand how to mediate across those different companies that come in.
Our company has seven different. Countries represented in our team. So right now, so, so we’re, we’re a US company, but we’re barely, you know, we’re just kind of by name, but I think most of our team members are, are not in the us and, and that’s international collaboration is something, um, I, I really, I really loved working on it.
And I think, so when we go to Japan next week, it’s really mainly just to learn. You know, we don’t. We have a lot to learn about Japan, and, and that’s what’s fun about each of these, these regions.
Gordon Jackson: And that’s where we can help because, uh, you know, we’ve got a presence in Japan. We’ve been doing offshore wind in Japan, so we’re there, we’re there to help eight to eco TLP with our, those little contacts and uh, you know, h do business, uh, uh, in Japan and things like that.
So, you know, [00:22:00] we have a big international network, so you know, it can help. Some, uh, in some areas, you know, open some doors and, uh, forge some, uh, some friendships between, uh, count companies.
Allen Hall: Courtney did a big project out in Perth, Australia, which is a difficult place, right. Australia is a very difficult place to manufacture things.
What are some of the lessons learned and and what was that process like?
Gordon Jackson: So he had a, a client, uh, a very small client who was prepared to. Seed responsibility for delivering his project to a, to a team, an alliance team. Uh, and he just, um, interviewed a number of teams and, uh, we were lucky enough to be selected, uh, as the team to deliver their project.
There was no tendering, uh, it was just done on, you know, how the, how the client felt about the, the individuals that he met. Um, and that, that was [00:23:00] very new to me. Um, and, um, the whole project was delivered, uh, by companies from the uk, from from Australia, from Singapore, uh, from be Netherlands, you know, the Marine, uh, the marine, uh, vessels.
You know, a lot of ’em are coming from, uh, from, uh, Northern Europe, uh, even though you’re in Australia. Um, and, um, you know, every company wants to do things differently and they all want to look after their interests, but the big thing about this alliance project was that, uh, you were, you were focused on one particular project and we were, um, we were coached and, and facilitated, and trained to, um, to throw away our, you know, our company affiliations and work together.
And, uh, you know, to collaborate together. And, um, [00:24:00] you know, we’re all working towards the, the end goal of delivering a particular product. And I think that’s, I think it’s got a lot of, um, lot of potential to be used in the offshore wind sector. This, this was, uh, you know, uh, an oil platform that we were gonna build on the, uh, the northwest shelf of Australia, um, which happened to be built in concrete, um, because the client.
The client came to us with a, with a, a notion of, of doing something in concrete, um, which we, we took his idea, uh, decided we could do something a little bit cheaper and more straightforward and, um, you know, went on to deliver it. We were given the opportunity to deliver it. And, uh, yeah, I, it was my best project.
Uh, it was a tremendous experience for all the companies involved. And you know, everyone made money so everyone’s happy.
Allen Hall: That is difficult, right? You, you do see on these offshore projects, people coming from around the world to [00:25:00] work on this one big effort, a lot of money, and at times, thousands of people involved.
You see companies stu stumble there, uh, obviously because you’re trying to tie cultures, you’re trying to tie companies together, but at the end of the day, you have to get this project done. Are, are there some top level lessons learned from that of, of how to bridge those differences?
Gordon Jackson: Well, I did another project, uh, this was a, a steel project, um, where we had a, a US oil company.
Uh, and, um. The successful contractor was Hyundai in Korea. And they said to, said to me over the course of the project,
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: uh,
Gordon Jackson: we always lose money with, um, with American oil companies. You know, why, why are we doing business with them? Uh, and it, and it all came down to the, you know, the, the approach to the [00:26:00]contract.
You know, um, Hyundai used to. Working in a more collaborative way with our clients, whereas, you know, this project, you know, this is what the contract says, this is what you’ve taken on to do, you know, there’s no negotiation, you know, you’ll do it and that’s how much money you’re getting. And, uh, you know, um, but they find that very difficult.
And, uh, it was at the time when they were sort of opening up their business more internationally. Um, and I think it was a big learning experience for them. Um. So, yeah. Um, I think a lot of the offshore wind tried to follow the same path and, um, yeah, I think more collaborative working is to be encouraged for me.
Um, you know, more talking to each other and negotiating rather than, uh, you know, imposs.
Allen Hall: Where should developers go to find out more about Eco TLP? [00:27:00] Because you have a gravity based system. You got attention lake platform, there’s a, there’s a lot inside of the company. What’s the first stop? Should they visit your website?
Should they connect with you on LinkedIn? Where do they go?
Nicole Johnson-Murphy: The LinkedIn where website is great.
Allen Hall: So go visit Eco TLP. It’s E-C-O-T-L-P. Com, Nicole and Gordon, this has been a great discussion. I’ve learned a lot. It’s very exciting because I think you’re on the precipice of something great. So thank you for joining me today.
Gordon Jackson: Thank you. Thank you.
Renewable Energy
Trump’s War in Iran
The meme here depicts where the United States has gone recently. Our president starts an illegal and unnecessary war.
Can he stop it? Neither quickly nor easily.
Does he deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Absolutely.
Renewable Energy
Trump Faces Opposition from Our Top Entertainers
In case it’s not already clear, Trump supporters buy virtually zero of Neil Young’s music, if only because it’s aggressively anti-racist, e.g. “Southern Man,” and “Alabama.”
Imagine you’re a white person living in the Deep South, and you come across these lyrics: “Alabama, you have the rest of the union to help you along. What’s going wrong?”
How large is your appetite for this man’s music?
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
