• Bernie EcclestonedOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      501 year ago

      It’s in the North Sea, pretty hostile environment for anything manmade. Oil rigs in the same area have an expected lifetime of 25 years.

      • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That’s true - I was thinking about that after I posted since it’s a salt-water environment and things will likely corrode over time.

    • growsomethinggood ()
      link
      fedilink
      English
      331 year ago

      This is a typical “lifespan” of these types of projects, that is to say, the lifespan where it produces sufficient amounts of energy versus the degradation of the equipment to justify upkeep costs (which may be greater for offshore wind than on-shore). It’s not going to break down over night after 35 years, it could go 50 or even more, but at lower energy production. The other reason for these lifespan calculations is that, in 35 years, the technology may far out pace what is currently installed in likely a prime location, and maybe local energy demands have changed. If that’s the case, a “repower” may occur where existing infrastructure is adapted to new equipment which produces far more energy.

      • @atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Makes sense - I did some searching on other project lifespans and they do seem similar (actually this seems on the longer-end of the range).

    • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s just the lifespan of a typical wind turbine. Most last less than that.

      But then Trawsfynydd nuclear power station was only operational for 26 years. The coal station up the road from me has been going for 55 years, but who know how much of the original guts of that remain.

      In any case £9bn for 35 years of clean power seems like a bargain.