What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Germany Scales Back on Wind Energy Because Its Not Working

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,319
Reaction score
14,114
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
It said that [(fuel used by 100 MW LNG plant) / (fuel used by 400 MW of wind turbines)] is a divide-by-zero situation.

It ignored the expense of your battery backup.

Greens are well known for ignoring expenses incurred by their free fuel.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
1,753
Points
290
Location
N/A
We weren't talking about expense. We were talking about fuel. And in one of the articles I was reading on wind power today, I came across an interesting comment by some power company engineer. He said the variability of the wind is easy to deal with, with today's smart grid and multiple potential sources. With good weather reports you can anticipate changes well in advance so that there is often very LITTLE need for the backup capacity all the deniers here scream about. What is really a kick in the ass, he said, was when a large generator in a classical power plant suddenly goes tits up. To cover that requires backups spinning 24/7. Wind will give you days of warning so backup systems can sit idle.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
65,090
Reaction score
16,004
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
... Yup, you fucked up.
... The greatest thing about President Trump is he makes leftists shit their pants in incoherent rage.
no comment
It's true.

Nothing what you said to me up to now had anything to do with truth. And in gerneral to use the word "truth" in context of Donald Trump sounds blasphemic in my ears. This man never had anything to do with truth. From my point of view this man is a stupid criminal and/or criminal stupid.
I said "President Trump is he makes leftists shit their pants in incoherent rage", and you screech NUH UH!! and proceed to shit your pants in incoherent rage.

Take a shower, kid.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
65,090
Reaction score
16,004
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
We weren't trying to kill Germany. ...

You murdered Germans in masses in world war 1 and 2. And you eliminated Germany systematically. What's today called "Germany" is more a kind of US-European joke of history. The Germans from the years 1913 have today in average 1/2 descendent - and this descendents are old and have not many children.
We weren't trying to kill Germany.

You can tell because Germany's still there. ...

Let me say it this way: Germans and Germany is something what's existing for our enemies and what they forced us to be - but not for us Germans. We never were a nation. "German" - better to say the German word for German - means just simple "united". You are a member of the German states of America for example. And you speak a German language. Take all words with Latin and Germanic roots out of your language, then you are perhaps able to understand what I say here.

I don't care. Your opinion on American matters is just as worthless as my opinion on German matters.

And what is my worthless opinion about what kind of US-American matter?
If this is where you try to convince me that your opinions on American matters is valuable, that's not going to work out the way you think.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
65,090
Reaction score
16,004
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Oh. You didn't mention that earlier. So its not that we can't power the country with alternative energy technology, it's that you think solar farms and wind turbines are more unsightly than a gas, oil or coal fired power plant. You're willing to beggar the nation to satisfy your (rather rare) sense of aesthetics. Got it.

You might want to read Vanadium redox battery - Wikipedia

And, again, I support nuclear power but if you want to cut down on metal mining, nuclear power is not your best choice.
Vanadium redox batteries use large amounts of sulfuric acid and toxic vanadium.

Sounds very safe.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
1,753
Points
290
Location
N/A
Oh. You didn't mention that earlier. So its not that we can't power the country with alternative energy technology, it's that you think solar farms and wind turbines are more unsightly than a gas, oil or coal fired power plant. You're willing to beggar the nation to satisfy your (rather rare) sense of aesthetics. Got it.

You might want to read Vanadium redox battery - Wikipedia

And, again, I support nuclear power but if you want to cut down on metal mining, nuclear power is not your best choice.
Vanadium redox batteries use large amounts of sulfuric acid and toxic vanadium.

Sounds very safe.

Yes they do and yes they are. But since they don't move and vanadium is the battery's singular electrolyte, they are rather simple to deal with. Their design also makes it very simple to scale them up. They will easily last for decades and tens of thousands of cycles. And when you're done with them, the vanadium can be easily recovered and used in steel rebar and tools. The Chinese are currently putting one together that will put out 200 MW for 4 hours. The advantages of vanadium redox batteries over lithium-ion are overwhelming and will undoubtedly dominate the world market in the very near future.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,284
Reaction score
798
Points
140
... Yup, you fucked up.
... The greatest thing about President Trump is he makes leftists shit their pants in incoherent rage.
no comment
It's true.

Nothing what you said to me up to now had anything to do with truth. And in gerneral to use the word "truth" in context of Donald Trump sounds blasphemic in my ears. This man never had anything to do with truth. From my point of view this man is a stupid criminal and/or criminal stupid.
I said "President Trump is he makes leftists shit their pants in incoherent rage", and you screech NUH UH!! and proceed to shit your pants in incoherent rage.

Take a shower, kid.

Example: Mr. Donald Trump is not president of the USA - and it's not the job of anyone else to have to correct your mistakes, bad intentions and all other nonsense, which you say,
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,284
Reaction score
798
Points
140
We weren't trying to kill Germany. ...

You murdered Germans in masses in world war 1 and 2. And you eliminated Germany systematically. What's today called "Germany" is more a kind of US-European joke of history. The Germans from the years 1913 have today in average 1/2 descendent - and this descendents are old and have not many children.
We weren't trying to kill Germany.

You can tell because Germany's still there. ...

Let me say it this way: Germans and Germany is something what's existing for our enemies and what they forced us to be - but not for us Germans. We never were a nation. "German" - better to say the German word for German - means just simple "united". You are a member of the German states of America for example. And you speak a German language. Take all words with Latin and Germanic roots out of your language, then you are perhaps able to understand what I say here.

I don't care. Your opinion on American matters is just as worthless as my opinion on German matters.

And what is my worthless opinion about what kind of US-American matter?
If this is where you try to convince me that your opinions on American matters is valuable, that's not going to work out the way you think.
You have no idea about my ways to think. Most of this ways have nothing to do with the USA nor with the English language. I never would say "America" for example instead of "USA". Reason: The USA is only a little part of America, so it would be ignorant, arrogant and wrong to do so.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,284
Reaction score
798
Points
140
The birds in Germany will be damn glad the Krauts have come to their senses.

Let me inform you were the expression "the Krauts" came from. In war the US-Americans saw in their pow camps how German soldiers tried to survive by eating all forms of plants (="Kraut") which they were able to eat, before they died on hunger.
... My father hated the Krauts ...

Fine. He hated us because Germany never in history did do anything bad to the USA. And we hated it to have to eat Kraut and to die on hunger in the pow camps of US-Americans. But we took our hate with us into our graves. And you continued to hate us - and your hate grew. That's the way it is - and that's why I think all soldiers of the USA without any exception should leave Germany forever. You are not able to defend what you hate.
 
Last edited:

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,284
Reaction score
798
Points
140
By the way: Exists anything in this world here what US-Americans do not hate, so every "discussion" with US-Americasn lands in the end always only on the planet hate of the anti-solar system USA?

 
Last edited:

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
Points
290
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
1,753
Points
290
Location
N/A
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?

For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
I compare wind to fossil fuel plants because people here, including you, have been trying to claim that power from a wind turbine costs more to the end user than power from a fossil fuel plant and that is simply not true. One of the primary reasons for that is zero fuel costs. I regard the wind turbines PRIMARY value to be it's zero-carbon output and the cost savings just an added benefit.

The average capacity of a wind turbine in the US (just asked Google) is 2.43 MW. The average size of a combined cycle (gas and steam) plant is 500 MW produced typically by 5 shaft sets. So, we're talking about roughly 40 wind turbines to match the output of 1 gas-fired shaft sets. The reliability of these systems is dependent on multiple factors. Complexity, temperature and pressure extremes, fatigue cycles, and others. A wind turbine consists of a large variable-pitch rotor attached to a gearbox attached to a generator. With no combustion there is no serious heat anywhere in the system. There are no working fluids, so no fluid pressure issues. The typical COGAS system consists of a gas burner feeding a low pressure, high temperature turbine the outlet of which goes into a heat exchanger to produce steam which feeds another turbine. It is considerably more complex and under considerably more stressful normal working conditions . Wind turbine technology, on the other hand, is not as mature as fuel powered generation. Then keep in mind that if a typical COGAS plant loses one shaft, they have lost 20% of their capacity. A 100 turbine farm losing one turbine still retains 99% capacity. That 40-to-1 ratio works in both directions. There is not a great deal of readily available information on the net to support either side of this argument, particularly if one tries to avoid real or perceivedly biased sources. I did find the following discussion on wind turbine reliability from what appears to be an objective source:
*****************************************
Wind Turbine Reliability Challenges

Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will perform its intended function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability engineers and researchers use field data, experiments, and analytical techniques to determine the failure rates of products over time under specific conditions, and then work with design engineers to make products more robust.

Determining the reliability of currently installed wind turbines is an active and challenging area of research. There are a number of databases globally that track wind turbine failures and downtimes, but there is no uniform method for deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to record it. Researchers have identified other problems as well:

  • Necessary data may not be available because it is considered proprietary by wind turbine operators.
  • It is difficult to compare data from one wind turbine to the next due to differences in component technologies and construction.
  • It is difficult to compare data from similar wind turbines operating in different environments (dry vs. wet, hot vs. cold, etc.).
  • Wind turbine designs and technologies are evolving rapidly, making it difficult to compare data from newer wind turbines to data from older, smaller wind turbines.
  • Wind turbines are typically designed for a 20-year lifetime, but most of the turbines in the field were installed less than 20 years ago. Complete lifecycle field data does not exist in most cases, and the oldest wind turbines with the most field data available are not representative of the latest designs and technologies.
  • There is also a limited amount of published work regarding failure analyses of wind turbine components, and much of the data that does exist is from older wind turbines. This makes it difficult to compare failures of similar components in different turbines. For example, there are many ways a gear box could fail. Without knowledge of exactly how the gear boxes failed in the field, it can be challenging to analyze gear box failures on similar wind turbines.

Despite these difficulties, researchers have made estimates of wind turbine reliability. In general, about half of wind turbine failures are due to electric components and to the control system, but these failures have low downtimes. Generator and gear box failures are less frequent but have longer downtimes. One study found that 25% of wind turbine faults caused 95% of the downtime. Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of 98%, but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

We do need power 24/7 but we also need to reduce our GHG emissions. The solution to that is not to restrict ourselves to single-technology solutions. An integrated approach including smart grids, Wind, solar PV, high efficiency combined gas and steam, hydroelectric and nuclear can achieve both aims. Wind turbines have infiltrated markets worldwide and we have not seen the decrease in system reliability you and others have been predicting.

A system that you expect to produce 25% of its rated output is the proper choice when other factors (zero carbon output, zero fuel consumption) dramatically affect long term costs and societal value, lower capitol expenditures offset the rated output issue and, at the small but compassionate end of the scale, when the technology will produce far more skilled job openings than older technologies.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
Points
290
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
I compare wind to fossil fuel plants because people here, including you, have been trying to claim that power from a wind turbine costs more to the end user than power from a fossil fuel plant and that is simply not true. One of the primary reasons for that is zero fuel costs. I regard the wind turbines PRIMARY value to be it's zero-carbon output and the cost savings just an added benefit.

The average capacity of a wind turbine in the US (just asked Google) is 2.43 MW. The average size of a combined cycle (gas and steam) plant is 500 MW produced typically by 5 shaft sets. So, we're talking about roughly 50 wind turbines to match the output of 5 shaft sets. The reliability of these systems is dependent on multiple factors. Complexity, temperature and pressure extremes, fatigue cycles, and others. A wind turbine consists of a large variable-pitch rotor attached to a gearbox attached to a generator. With no combustion there is no serious heat anywhere in the system. There are no working fluids, so no fluid pressure issues. The typical COGAS system consists of a gas burner feeding a low pressure, high temperature turbine the outlet of which goes into a heat exchanger to produce steam which feeds another turbine. It is considerably more complex and under considerably more stressful normal working conditions . Wind turbine technology, on the other hand, is not as mature as fuel powered generation. Then keep in mind that if a typical CODAG plant loses one shaft, they have lost 20% of their capacity. A 400 turbine farm losing one turbine still retains 99.75% capacity. That 10-to-1 ratio works in both directions. There is not a great deal of information on the net to support either side of this argument, particularly if one tries to avoid real or perceived bias in one's sources. I did find the following discussion on wind turbine reliability from what appears to be an objective source:
*****************************************
Wind Turbine Reliability Challenges

Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will perform its intended function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability engineers and researchers use field data, experiments, and analytical techniques to determine the failure rates of products over time under specific conditions, and then work with design engineers to make products more robust.

Determining the reliability of currently installed wind turbines is an active and challenging area of research. There are a number of databases globally that track wind turbine failures and downtimes, but there is no uniform method for deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to record it. Researchers7,8 have identified other problems as well:

  • Necessary data may not be available because it is considered proprietary by wind turbine operators.
  • It is difficult to compare data from one wind turbine to the next due to differences in component technologies and construction.
  • It is difficult to compare data from similar wind turbines operating in different environments (dry vs. wet, hot vs. cold, etc.).
  • Wind turbine designs and technologies are evolving rapidly, making it difficult to compare data from newer wind turbines to data from older, smaller wind turbines.
  • Wind turbines are typically designed for a 20-year lifetime, but most of the turbines in the field were installed less than 20 years ago. Complete lifecycle field data does not exist in most cases, and the oldest wind turbines with the most field data available are not representative of the latest designs and technologies.
  • There is also a limited amount of published work regarding failure analyses of wind turbine components, and much of the data that does exist is from older wind turbines. This makes it difficult to compare failures of similar components in different turbines. For example, there are many ways a gear box could fail. Without knowledge of exactly how the gear boxes failed in the field, it can be challenging to analyze gear box failures on similar wind turbines.

Despite these difficulties, researchers have made estimates of wind turbine reliability. In general, about half of wind turbine failures are due to electric components and to the control system, but these failures have low downtimes. Generator and gear box failures are less frequent but have longer downtimes. One study found that 25% of wind turbine faults caused 95% of the downtime. Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of 98%, but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

We do need power 24/7 but we also need to reduce our GHG emissions. The solution to that is not to restrict ourselves to single-technology solutions. An integrated approach including smart grids, Wind, solar PV, high efficiency combined gas and steam, hydroelectric and nuclear can achieve both aims. Wind turbines have infiltrated markets worldwide and we have not seen the decrease in system reliability you and others have been predicting.

A system that you expect to produce 25% of its rated output is the proper choice when other factors (zero carbon output, zero fuel consumption) dramatically affect long term prices, when lower capitol expenditures offset the rated output issue and, at the small but compassionate end of the scale, when the technology will produce far more skilled job openings than older technologies.
I never compared windmills to fossil fuel plants.

I am comparing them to nuclear plants because both are near emission free.

IMO there is no reason to consider wind a better investment than a fossil fuel free power source that runs at near 100% capacity 24/7/365.

It makes more sense to build fewer large turbines than it does to build tens of thousands of small turbines.

Hydroelectric is limited to places where we can dam rivers and cause a host of environmental problems that people are less apt to accept these days.

And in terms of the grid a stable base load is much easier to handle than large swings of power from intermittent sources because a constant base load is predictable and it simplifies the grid rather than adding more complexity.

And if we are going to a 100% electric society, and I think we should, stability and predictability are just as important as generating the massive amounts of electricity that are going to be needed and wind just isn't as easily scaled up as other power generation methods.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
13,414
Reaction score
4,354
Points
290
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?

For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
I compare wind to fossil fuel plants because people here, including you, have been trying to claim that power from a wind turbine costs more to the end user than power from a fossil fuel plant and that is simply not true. One of the primary reasons for that is zero fuel costs. I regard the wind turbines PRIMARY value to be it's zero-carbon output and the cost savings just an added benefit.

The average capacity of a wind turbine in the US (just asked Google) is 2.43 MW. The average size of a combined cycle (gas and steam) plant is 500 MW produced typically by 5 shaft sets. So, we're talking about roughly 40 wind turbines to match the output of 1 gas-fired shaft sets. The reliability of these systems is dependent on multiple factors. Complexity, temperature and pressure extremes, fatigue cycles, and others. A wind turbine consists of a large variable-pitch rotor attached to a gearbox attached to a generator. With no combustion there is no serious heat anywhere in the system. There are no working fluids, so no fluid pressure issues. The typical COGAS system consists of a gas burner feeding a low pressure, high temperature turbine the outlet of which goes into a heat exchanger to produce steam which feeds another turbine. It is considerably more complex and under considerably more stressful normal working conditions . Wind turbine technology, on the other hand, is not as mature as fuel powered generation. Then keep in mind that if a typical COGAS plant loses one shaft, they have lost 20% of their capacity. A 100 turbine farm losing one turbine still retains 99% capacity. That 40-to-1 ratio works in both directions. There is not a great deal of readily available information on the net to support either side of this argument, particularly if one tries to avoid real or perceivedly biased sources. I did find the following discussion on wind turbine reliability from what appears to be an objective source:
*****************************************
Wind Turbine Reliability Challenges

Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will perform its intended function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability engineers and researchers use field data, experiments, and analytical techniques to determine the failure rates of products over time under specific conditions, and then work with design engineers to make products more robust.

Determining the reliability of currently installed wind turbines is an active and challenging area of research. There are a number of databases globally that track wind turbine failures and downtimes, but there is no uniform method for deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to record it. Researchers have identified other problems as well:

  • Necessary data may not be available because it is considered proprietary by wind turbine operators.
  • It is difficult to compare data from one wind turbine to the next due to differences in component technologies and construction.
  • It is difficult to compare data from similar wind turbines operating in different environments (dry vs. wet, hot vs. cold, etc.).
  • Wind turbine designs and technologies are evolving rapidly, making it difficult to compare data from newer wind turbines to data from older, smaller wind turbines.
  • Wind turbines are typically designed for a 20-year lifetime, but most of the turbines in the field were installed less than 20 years ago. Complete lifecycle field data does not exist in most cases, and the oldest wind turbines with the most field data available are not representative of the latest designs and technologies.
  • There is also a limited amount of published work regarding failure analyses of wind turbine components, and much of the data that does exist is from older wind turbines. This makes it difficult to compare failures of similar components in different turbines. For example, there are many ways a gear box could fail. Without knowledge of exactly how the gear boxes failed in the field, it can be challenging to analyze gear box failures on similar wind turbines.

Despite these difficulties, researchers have made estimates of wind turbine reliability. In general, about half of wind turbine failures are due to electric components and to the control system, but these failures have low downtimes. Generator and gear box failures are less frequent but have longer downtimes. One study found that 25% of wind turbine faults caused 95% of the downtime. Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of 98%, but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

We do need power 24/7 but we also need to reduce our GHG emissions. The solution to that is not to restrict ourselves to single-technology solutions. An integrated approach including smart grids, Wind, solar PV, high efficiency combined gas and steam, hydroelectric and nuclear can achieve both aims. Wind turbines have infiltrated markets worldwide and we have not seen the decrease in system reliability you and others have been predicting.

A system that you expect to produce 25% of its rated output is the proper choice when other factors (zero carbon output, zero fuel consumption) dramatically affect long term costs and societal value, lower capitol expenditures offset the rated output issue and, at the small but compassionate end of the scale, when the technology will produce far more skilled job openings than older technologies.

4 2.5MW wind mills produces 2.5MW of power to produce 500MW you will need 800 2.5MW turbines.

or

a 2.5MW turbine actually produces .625 MW of power 500MW/.625MW= 800
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
91,470
Reaction score
32,380
Points
2,290
Proving the retardation of the left. Don't work so scale it back instead of stop using it all together.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
1,753
Points
290
Location
N/A
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?

For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
I compare wind to fossil fuel plants because people here, including you, have been trying to claim that power from a wind turbine costs more to the end user than power from a fossil fuel plant and that is simply not true. One of the primary reasons for that is zero fuel costs. I regard the wind turbines PRIMARY value to be it's zero-carbon output and the cost savings just an added benefit.

The average capacity of a wind turbine in the US (just asked Google) is 2.43 MW. The average size of a combined cycle (gas and steam) plant is 500 MW produced typically by 5 shaft sets. So, we're talking about roughly 40 wind turbines to match the output of 1 gas-fired shaft sets. The reliability of these systems is dependent on multiple factors. Complexity, temperature and pressure extremes, fatigue cycles, and others. A wind turbine consists of a large variable-pitch rotor attached to a gearbox attached to a generator. With no combustion there is no serious heat anywhere in the system. There are no working fluids, so no fluid pressure issues. The typical COGAS system consists of a gas burner feeding a low pressure, high temperature turbine the outlet of which goes into a heat exchanger to produce steam which feeds another turbine. It is considerably more complex and under considerably more stressful normal working conditions . Wind turbine technology, on the other hand, is not as mature as fuel powered generation. Then keep in mind that if a typical COGAS plant loses one shaft, they have lost 20% of their capacity. A 100 turbine farm losing one turbine still retains 99% capacity. That 40-to-1 ratio works in both directions. There is not a great deal of readily available information on the net to support either side of this argument, particularly if one tries to avoid real or perceivedly biased sources. I did find the following discussion on wind turbine reliability from what appears to be an objective source:
*****************************************
Wind Turbine Reliability Challenges

Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will perform its intended function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability engineers and researchers use field data, experiments, and analytical techniques to determine the failure rates of products over time under specific conditions, and then work with design engineers to make products more robust.

Determining the reliability of currently installed wind turbines is an active and challenging area of research. There are a number of databases globally that track wind turbine failures and downtimes, but there is no uniform method for deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to record it. Researchers have identified other problems as well:

  • Necessary data may not be available because it is considered proprietary by wind turbine operators.
  • It is difficult to compare data from one wind turbine to the next due to differences in component technologies and construction.
  • It is difficult to compare data from similar wind turbines operating in different environments (dry vs. wet, hot vs. cold, etc.).
  • Wind turbine designs and technologies are evolving rapidly, making it difficult to compare data from newer wind turbines to data from older, smaller wind turbines.
  • Wind turbines are typically designed for a 20-year lifetime, but most of the turbines in the field were installed less than 20 years ago. Complete lifecycle field data does not exist in most cases, and the oldest wind turbines with the most field data available are not representative of the latest designs and technologies.
  • There is also a limited amount of published work regarding failure analyses of wind turbine components, and much of the data that does exist is from older wind turbines. This makes it difficult to compare failures of similar components in different turbines. For example, there are many ways a gear box could fail. Without knowledge of exactly how the gear boxes failed in the field, it can be challenging to analyze gear box failures on similar wind turbines.

Despite these difficulties, researchers have made estimates of wind turbine reliability. In general, about half of wind turbine failures are due to electric components and to the control system, but these failures have low downtimes. Generator and gear box failures are less frequent but have longer downtimes. One study found that 25% of wind turbine faults caused 95% of the downtime. Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of 98%, but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

We do need power 24/7 but we also need to reduce our GHG emissions. The solution to that is not to restrict ourselves to single-technology solutions. An integrated approach including smart grids, Wind, solar PV, high efficiency combined gas and steam, hydroelectric and nuclear can achieve both aims. Wind turbines have infiltrated markets worldwide and we have not seen the decrease in system reliability you and others have been predicting.

A system that you expect to produce 25% of its rated output is the proper choice when other factors (zero carbon output, zero fuel consumption) dramatically affect long term costs and societal value, lower capitol expenditures offset the rated output issue and, at the small but compassionate end of the scale, when the technology will produce far more skilled job openings than older technologies.

4 2.5MW wind mills produces 2.5MW of power to produce 500MW you will need 800 2.5MW turbines.

or

a 2.5MW turbine actually produces .625 MW of power 500MW/.625MW= 800

I was not comparing a single wind turbine to an entire gas-fired plant. I was comparing it to one of the typical plant's five COGAS shaft units. 500MW/5 shaft set = 100 MW/shaft set. 100MW/shaft set//2.5MW/Turbine = 40 Turbines/shaft set.
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
4,250
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?

For the third time, you do not need to argue nuclear power with me. I like nuclear power. The topic of this thread is wind energy.

Then let's compare the fuel costs between a 100 MW LNG plant and 400 MW of wind turbines. Hmm... my calculator keeps saying something about divide by zero...

Why compare it to a fossil fuel power plant when the idea is to generate emission free power?

But what are the maintennace costs of 400 wind turbines compared to one large turbine? What about the operating life of those turbines compared to a single large turbine?

We need power 24/7/365 and intermittent power generators aren't the way to get it

In what accounting does any power generator that only produces 25% of it rated capacity a good deal?

Would you buy a car that only got you 25% the way to your destination?

Would you buy a furnace for you home that only heated your home to 25% of the thermostat setting?
I compare wind to fossil fuel plants because people here, including you, have been trying to claim that power from a wind turbine costs more to the end user than power from a fossil fuel plant and that is simply not true. One of the primary reasons for that is zero fuel costs. I regard the wind turbines PRIMARY value to be it's zero-carbon output and the cost savings just an added benefit.

The average capacity of a wind turbine in the US (just asked Google) is 2.43 MW. The average size of a combined cycle (gas and steam) plant is 500 MW produced typically by 5 shaft sets. So, we're talking about roughly 40 wind turbines to match the output of 1 gas-fired shaft sets. The reliability of these systems is dependent on multiple factors. Complexity, temperature and pressure extremes, fatigue cycles, and others. A wind turbine consists of a large variable-pitch rotor attached to a gearbox attached to a generator. With no combustion there is no serious heat anywhere in the system. There are no working fluids, so no fluid pressure issues. The typical COGAS system consists of a gas burner feeding a low pressure, high temperature turbine the outlet of which goes into a heat exchanger to produce steam which feeds another turbine. It is considerably more complex and under considerably more stressful normal working conditions . Wind turbine technology, on the other hand, is not as mature as fuel powered generation. Then keep in mind that if a typical COGAS plant loses one shaft, they have lost 20% of their capacity. A 100 turbine farm losing one turbine still retains 99% capacity. That 40-to-1 ratio works in both directions. There is not a great deal of readily available information on the net to support either side of this argument, particularly if one tries to avoid real or perceivedly biased sources. I did find the following discussion on wind turbine reliability from what appears to be an objective source:
*****************************************
Wind Turbine Reliability Challenges

Reliability is defined as the probability that a product will perform its intended function under stated conditions for a specified period of time. Reliability engineers and researchers use field data, experiments, and analytical techniques to determine the failure rates of products over time under specific conditions, and then work with design engineers to make products more robust.

Determining the reliability of currently installed wind turbines is an active and challenging area of research. There are a number of databases globally that track wind turbine failures and downtimes, but there is no uniform method for deciding what data to collect, how to collect it, and how to record it. Researchers have identified other problems as well:

  • Necessary data may not be available because it is considered proprietary by wind turbine operators.
  • It is difficult to compare data from one wind turbine to the next due to differences in component technologies and construction.
  • It is difficult to compare data from similar wind turbines operating in different environments (dry vs. wet, hot vs. cold, etc.).
  • Wind turbine designs and technologies are evolving rapidly, making it difficult to compare data from newer wind turbines to data from older, smaller wind turbines.
  • Wind turbines are typically designed for a 20-year lifetime, but most of the turbines in the field were installed less than 20 years ago. Complete lifecycle field data does not exist in most cases, and the oldest wind turbines with the most field data available are not representative of the latest designs and technologies.
  • There is also a limited amount of published work regarding failure analyses of wind turbine components, and much of the data that does exist is from older wind turbines. This makes it difficult to compare failures of similar components in different turbines. For example, there are many ways a gear box could fail. Without knowledge of exactly how the gear boxes failed in the field, it can be challenging to analyze gear box failures on similar wind turbines.

Despite these difficulties, researchers have made estimates of wind turbine reliability. In general, about half of wind turbine failures are due to electric components and to the control system, but these failures have low downtimes. Generator and gear box failures are less frequent but have longer downtimes. One study found that 25% of wind turbine faults caused 95% of the downtime. Reliability of wind turbines has improved with time and has achieved an availability of 98%, but wind turbines fail at least once per year, on average, with larger wind turbines failing relatively more frequently. A recent study of US wind turbines found that when all sources of downtime are accounted for, the average wind turbine actively generates power for 1.5 days between downtime events and that the average downtime is 1.6 hours.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

We do need power 24/7 but we also need to reduce our GHG emissions. The solution to that is not to restrict ourselves to single-technology solutions. An integrated approach including smart grids, Wind, solar PV, high efficiency combined gas and steam, hydroelectric and nuclear can achieve both aims. Wind turbines have infiltrated markets worldwide and we have not seen the decrease in system reliability you and others have been predicting.

A system that you expect to produce 25% of its rated output is the proper choice when other factors (zero carbon output, zero fuel consumption) dramatically affect long term costs and societal value, lower capitol expenditures offset the rated output issue and, at the small but compassionate end of the scale, when the technology will produce far more skilled job openings than older technologies.

4 2.5MW wind mills produces 2.5MW of power to produce 500MW you will need 800 2.5MW turbines.

or

a 2.5MW turbine actually produces .625 MW of power 500MW/.625MW= 800

I was not comparing a single wind turbine to an entire gas-fired plant. I was comparing it to one of the typical plant's five COGAS shaft units. 100 MW. 100/2.5 = 40.


But this pwns you s0n...............

Energy Usage Projections - Bing


Note the colors that are NOT purple!! :bye1: :bye1: :laughing0301:


Your sh*t is philosophy. World governments dont concur.............. :cul2:

Climate crusaders continue to be the epitome of the unicorn chasers.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
1,753
Points
290
Location
N/A
Proving the retardation of the left. Don't work so scale it back instead of stop using it all together.

Would you mind explaining? What do you believe doesn't work and is being scaled back? Wind turbines? That would be false.

1618848471914.png

 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,634
Reaction score
4,250
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Proving the retardation of the left. Don't work so scale it back instead of stop using it all together.

Would you mind explaining? What do you believe doesn't work and is being scaled back? Wind turbines? That would be false.

View attachment 481676

Notable...........

Whenever progressives put up a graph, the first thing you always notice is, the #'s arent compared to anything. Additions of power capacity for renewables always looks impressive.....but only when in relation to itself. Only the rubes of the world are impressed.

Here is a comparison graph.....from the United States EIA btw.

Energy Usage Projections - Bing

:oops8:

Very clear........renewables are a joke and will be for many, many decades. Are you a sucker.:up: But dont take my word for it......click on the link above and see the projections for renewables vs. fossil fuels.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$400.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top