Ice Risk Analysis for Floating Wind Turbines, Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the offshore hydrocarbons production industry has resulted in a growing interest in the possibility of using offshore wind to reduce on-platform power generation. While some offshore areas are progressing towards or planning for the use of offshore wind to electrify hydrocarbon producing platforms, they do not have the challenges associated with Newfoundland & Labrador's offshore environment.This region is prone to incursions by icebergs and pack ice, which would present a risk to offshore wind turbines. Analysis approachesto assess these risks, along with preliminary results, are presented herefor floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT). An area of interest (AOI), covering 45°N to 51°N and 45°W to 51°W, was defined covering all development licenses on the Grand Banks, Flemish Pass and Orphan Basin. Iceberg and pack ice contact rates and loads were calculated using data from the Nalcor NESS Metocean database, Canadian Ice Service (CIS) ice charts and satellite imagery. Ice loads corresponding to 50-year return periods levels were assessed, with and without ice management, giving a basis for determining whether ice management and/or disconnection capabilities are required. The frequency and severity of atmospheric icing of turbines was also modelled using available data and models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".