[nraynaud]

I think they have thought about it, it doesn't mean they got it right. Those people deliver brand new wind turbines whose rotor are not balanced. They deliver onshore turbine bolted to deficient foundations. They never reach their goals. (Yes I have worked a bit in the industry)

[cr1895]

>They deliver onshore turbine bolted to deficient foundations. They never reach their goals. (Yes I have worked a bit in the industry)

As someone who presumably works a bit more than you in the offshore construction industry, I'd love to see you quantify these statements. Especially since you imply them to be industry-wide, commonplace blights.

[nraynaud]

Instead of picking a fight (I already know no source or figure would satisfy you), would be constructive and explain how the yaw works on floating systems?

[cr1895]

>(I already know no source or figure would satisfy you)

Woah there. I'm not picking a fight with you. You make some pretty bold claims like "they deliver insufficient foundations." Tolerances for verticality, foundation position, etc. are contractually obliged and delivered overwhelmingly with success.

>would be constructive and explain how the yaw works on floating systems?

"Floating systems" is too broadly undefined to give you an answer. Could be that the mooring design resists yaw motion within certain tolerances. Could be that yaw motion of the base is compensated by a rotating nacelle.

[Jedd]

> I think they have thought about it, it doesn't mean they got it right.

I think you're being evasive.

Do you think they have not thought about these problems as much or as effectively as you have?

How much have you thought about it, what expertise are you comparing to this company's proposals, and how do your proof of concept deployments compare to theirs in terms of size, scale, and longevity?