GE Renewable Energy is building a new manufacturing facility in Teesside that will supply giant blades for the wind turbines of Dogger Bank.
Due to open in 2023, the plant will be operated by GE subsidiary LM Wind Power and will employ up to 750 people directly, with an additional 1,500 jobs being supported indirectly across the region. The factory will manufacture 107m long blades for GE’s Haliade-X, claimed to be the world’s most powerful offshore wind turbine, with a single rotation generating enough energy to power a UK home for two days.
Sea mussels to inspire offshore wind farm solutions
An engineer’s view: over 40 years in offshore wind and infrastructure
“This new plant will contribute to the development of an industrial cluster dedicated to offshore wind in the North East of England,” said Jerôme Pécresse, president and CEO of GE Renewable Energy.
“We are delighted to announce such a commitment for the renewable energy industry, we believe it will help develop a strong talent pool through the hiring and more importantly training of future colleagues. The UK’s target to commission 40GW of offshore wind by 2030 is ambitious and requires that we invest in local production capabilities to accompany this effort.”
Dogger Bank will initially use 190 GE Haliade-X 13MW offshore wind turbines over two sites (A&B) for an installed capacity of 2.47GW. The last phase of the North Sea project, Dogger Bank C, will use GE Haliade 14MW turbines, taking the overall capacity to 3.6GW on completion in 2026 and making it the world’s largest offshore wind farm.
“We’re incredibly proud to say Dogger Bank Wind Farm is the anchor project for the blade facility announcement by GE today,” said Dogger Bank Wind Farm project director, Steve Wilson.
“Dogger Bank Wind Farm is a world-leading development pushing the boundaries of offshore wind development and playing a key role in delivering the ambition to increase UK supply chain capacity and capability. Through our turbine supply order with GE, the Dogger Bank project is the catalyst for this important GE investment in Teesside, harnessing skills and expertise in the local area and delivering long-term benefits in the UK’s offshore wind sector.”
The UK is nowadays a world leader in renewable energy sources but it has always been poor state of affairs that, originally, we had to rely upon foreign expertise for wind technology. Whilst large wind turbines and blades are indeed now made in the UK and the development at Teeside will add another manufacturing outlet, it is foreign-based companies that are providing the employment.
Worrying that GE are now planning to make a fortune out of the UK’s expansion of wind. The UK leads the world in buying-in windmills and erecting them in silly places. So, if we continue to increase our wind generation we will be subsidising Germany, Denmark and now the USA.
None of these companies will help when we have another wind free week: the Germans and USA will offer to sell us CCGT plant as back-up. Hard to believe that just a generation ago the UK led the world in power generation plant and sold many GW round the world, yet now has virtually no capacity to design or supply these. We desperately need the SMR to be kick-started.
Yes Jack, you’re right. This is another bitter legacy of the political incompetence of the 1980s, when the innovative CEGB was replaced by a parasitic National Grid and general de-industrialisation.
It’s doubly ironic that an American company is investing in UK production when (because?) they have so little opportunity to develop offshore windfarms in their home waters. If you substitute “windmills” with HAWTs, all of their problems would disappear. Floating wind/wave – VAWT installations with integral storage are cheap to build, last longer and have lower running costs.
Proposals to add 30GW of offshore HAWTs to the 10GW we already have are devoid of intellectual rigour and a commercial liability. A total installed capacity < 30GW of Marine Energies (including tidal) would supply all the flexible generation we need to run a foolproof grid/network. A Carbon Trust study and a report by Aurora Energy Research both estimated a need for 70GW. I think they probably don't have a clue what they're talking about?!
The discredited doctrine of technology-neutral ‘match funding’ throws taxpayers’ money at any company wealthy enough to fool the government they’ll create jobs in a sustainable industry. The BEIS knows how to design Marine Energies that eliminate intermittency, but won’t implement an Innovation Strategy where the state takes responsibility for any R&I or infrastructure build that the private sector is incapable of. (disruptive technology) e.g. The DECC doctrine:-
4.3. “The government believes that the private sector is best placed to design, build and operate a Severn tidal scheme. Government’s role would be to set the conditions in which a scheme could come forward. Do you agree?” No smart politician, economist or engineer could agree with such a preposterous proposition. (that isn’t applied to HS2!) Would you agree, Jack?
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/net-zero-innovation-portfolio
“Competitions will be launching throughout 2021.” A daft idea that’s never worked. The priorities are obvious. They must be set by government and founded on science, not a phoney business case.
1.) Novel energy storage. 2.) Novel Marine Energy. (wind/wave and tidal) 3.) Hydrogen.
“Register your interest in the Longer Duration Energy Storage Demonstration.” Fat lot of good that will do. If you’re not a millionaire the system invalidates any proposals you put forward. SMRs will get loads of public money, even though we don't need them. We need cheap RE electricity.
Their giant blades don’t meet circular economy requirements either. My VAWT turbine blades are aluminium extrusions with twice the service life and they’re readily recycled, when necessary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51325101
You have expressed understandable scepticism about the switch to hydrogen, but innovation may well have the answers there too:-
http://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/hydrogen-paste-a-new-fuel-option-for-vehicles/
“A possible solution emerging is the hydrogen-based paste, which is being developed at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Dresden. Powerpaste has a huge energy storage density, substantially higher than that of a 700 bar high pressure tank. Compared to batteries, it has ten times the energy storage density. This means that Powerpaste offers a range comparable to, or even greater than, gasoline.”
Rest ‘assured’, the UK will subsidise/import any ‘commercial’ foreign products!!
Are the Tertiary Institutions in the UK , geared to deliver Sustainable Energy Engineers for the 21st Century ?
Committed engineers will have to take up the baton , in the ebb and flow of knowledge and expertise for the sake of addressing the skill shortfall in the UK .
It does not really matter from where the capacity is drawn on condition that
there are enough skills to advance the progress for the the whole world .
It’s doubly ironic that an American company is investing in UK production when (because?) they have so little opportunity to develop offshore windfarms in their home waters. If you substitute “windmills” with HAWTs, all of their problems could disappear. Floating wind/wave – VAWT installations with integral storage are cheap to build, last longer and have lower running costs.
The discredited doctrine of technology-neutral ‘match funding’ throws taxpayers’ money at any company wealthy enough to fool the government they’ll create jobs in a sustainable industry. The BEIS knows how to design Marine Energies that eliminate intermittency, but won’t implement an Innovation Strategy where the state takes responsibility for any R&I or infrastructure build that the private sector is incapable of. (disruptive technology) e.g. The DECC doctrine:-
4.3. “The government believes that the private sector is best placed to design, build and operate a Severn tidal scheme. Government’s role would be to set the conditions in which a scheme could come forward. Do you agree?” No smart politician, economist or engineer could agree with such a preposterous proposition. (which isn’t imposed upon unprofitable infrastructure such as HS2!)
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/net-zero-innovation-portfolio
“Competitions will be launching throughout 2021.” A daft idea that has never worked. The priorities are obvious. They must be set by government and founded on science, not a phoney business case.
1.) Novel energy storage. 2.) Novel Marine Energy. (wind/wave and tidal) 3.) Hydrogen.
“Register your interest in the Longer Duration Energy Storage Demonstration.” – Fat lot of good that’ll do. If you’re not a millionaire the system invalidates any proposals you put forward.
Their giant blades don’t meet circular economy requirements either. My VAWT turbine blades are aluminium extrusions with twice the service life and they’re readily recycled, when necessary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51325101