PDA

View Full Version : "Fun" with wind turbines



The Bigfella
09-11-2016, 11:24 PM
I'm no fan of these giant mixmasters.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzgIxMEo8g

The Bigfella
09-11-2016, 11:26 PM
Pity about the eagle.

Here's another one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5COAi6KM8o

Waddie
09-11-2016, 11:33 PM
You better never visit Iowa. They intend to become energy independent by building something like a thousand more wind turbines across the state. Iowa already has some huge wind farms, as they're called. My daughter flew us over Iowa a couple of years ago in her plane and we saw miles and miles of wind turbines. It actually was kind of surreal.

http://futurism.com/1000-wind-turbines-iowa-announces-plan-to-go-totally-renewable/

regards,
Waddie

WX
09-12-2016, 12:46 AM
It is a shame about the eagle. It would be a long list if we detailed the many ways wildlife die as a result of our technologies. 280 Koalas died as a result of the Moreton Bay rail link.
However there are better more efficient designs that are less deadly to birds and I wonder why they aren't used.
More than 280 koalas died during the construction of Brisbane's troubled Moreton Bay Rail Link.
Statistics released by the Department of Main Roads and Transport paint a damning portrait of poor planning around the relocation of the koala population.
The Moreton Bay Rail Link project, currently delayed due to signalling problems, lopped trees and cleared the koala habitat, which was one of the most significant koala habitats in southeast Queensland.
Since tagging began in March 2013, 481 koalas have been successfully tagged and monitored.
Tragically, over half of those have died.
Wild dogs accounted for 116 of the total deaths, and are the suspected of causing another 38 deaths.
According to leading koala expert Professor Darryl Jones, relocating koalas can be an extremely dangerous and problematic process.
"Koalas know when they are not home... and they get on the ground and walk for miles, looking for where 'home' used to be," he told The Brisbane Times.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/qld/2016/07/27/more-than-280-koalas-died-near-qld-rail-works.html#sthash.PZyQ1K55.dpuf

BrianW
09-12-2016, 01:05 AM
Some engineering failures, which is is basically what the video shows, is hardly call to abandon the technology.

I've driven around the country, and seen hundreds of windmills not blowing up or falling down.

That said, I'm open to the debate about how much they help, but this video is not that convincing.

WX
09-12-2016, 01:35 AM
We have a government that is quite anti renewables and still thinks coal is pretty neat.:)

Phil Y
09-12-2016, 01:54 AM
I wonder how many people coal has killed, and continues to kill. Oh and that's not even thinking about climate change.

BrianW
09-12-2016, 01:56 AM
I live between 2 wind farms , and I can tell you they are completely unreliable.
They spend a lot of time hardly moving , or stationary.
If you are ok with that , then go windfarms.
Rob J.

That's something I've noticed also, but I'm not sure why. Is it a lack of need for the generation of power at the time, broken windmills, lack of monitoring?

I'm not sure of the answer, so I put off judgement.

The Bigfella
09-12-2016, 02:37 AM
It is a shame about the eagle. It would be a long list if we detailed the many ways wildlife die as a result of our technologies. 280 Koalas died as a result of the Moreton Bay rail link.
However there are better more efficient designs that are less deadly to birds and I wonder why they aren't used.
More than 280 koalas died during the construction of Brisbane's troubled Moreton Bay Rail Link.
Statistics released by the Department of Main Roads and Transport paint a damning portrait of poor planning around the relocation of the koala population.
The Moreton Bay Rail Link project, currently delayed due to signalling problems, lopped trees and cleared the koala habitat, which was one of the most significant koala habitats in southeast Queensland.
Since tagging began in March 2013, 481 koalas have been successfully tagged and monitored.
Tragically, over half of those have died.
Wild dogs accounted for 116 of the total deaths, and are the suspected of causing another 38 deaths.
According to leading koala expert Professor Darryl Jones, relocating koalas can be an extremely dangerous and problematic process.
"Koalas know when they are not home... and they get on the ground and walk for miles, looking for where 'home' used to be," he told The Brisbane Times.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/qld/2016/07/27/more-than-280-koalas-died-near-qld-rail-works.html#sthash.PZyQ1K55.dpuf

Well, that's a tad silly, isn't it?

Koalas have a life expectancy according to one source of 13-16 years.... so, since the March 2013, one quarter of them, 120 or so can be expected to have died from old age alone.

Wild dogs accounted for another 116-154. So, we're up to 274 already... so, how did the rail link cause all this?

The Bigfella
09-12-2016, 02:45 AM
Some engineering failures, which is is basically what the video shows, is hardly call to abandon the technology.

I've driven around the country, and seen hundreds of windmills not blowing up or falling down.

That said, I'm open to the debate about how much they help, but this video is not that convincing.

I didn't really present them as an argument against wind power... just found them interesting. I'll take good renewable energy when it's available... but I'm not convinced that wind power is all that good. As Rob has said... they aren't that reliable.

... and yep... coal's nasty, but it's the standby here because the Trots have resisted nuclear so strongly.

Phil Y
09-12-2016, 05:01 AM
How many industries run , houses heat , meals cooked , using coal fired power ?.
How much coal powered electricity has been bought by SA , because their windfarms aren't up to the job ?.
Shut down the coal fired power stations , and then what ?.
Rob J.
Then continue to improve the alternatives. It's pretty obvious we have to get out of coal. So wind, solar, storage, long distance transmission. It's all there, all happening. A NIMBY objection to wind farms is one thing, but if you don't develop renewables, then what? Right back at ya.

PeterSibley
09-12-2016, 05:13 AM
How many industries run , houses heat , meals cooked , using coal fired power ?.
How much coal powered electricity has been bought by SA , because their windfarms aren't up to the job ?.
Shut down the coal fired power stations , and then what ?.
Rob J.

Not this one, I pay a small premium to buy wind or solar generated power.

WX
09-12-2016, 05:45 AM
WE have yet to have a government seriously willing to explore alternatives.

renewables are unreliable.
How many ways can you think of to generate energy from the forces of nature?

PeterSibley
09-12-2016, 06:03 AM
So what do you see as the acceptable options Rob ?

Garret
09-12-2016, 06:11 AM
Whine, whinge, whatever you want to call it. We need to go back to coal - it's the only reliable energy source. Heck - even better let's go back to overshot wooden mill wheels & animal power.

Renewables are unreliable? A few turbines burn & the world is coming to an end? A few aren't turning so they're a waste? Try doing some research on wind & hydro reliability & you'll find it's actually very high.

PeterSibley
09-12-2016, 06:29 AM
I generally agree Rob, the market plus a bit of subsidy will sort it. Nuclear is a no go, just because no one will pay to build it and if you think people don't want wind turbines next door ask them about a nuclear power station and a waste storage facility. Not very popular.

Howard was urging nuclear and he was PM but it didn't move at all even with him pushing.

Garret
09-12-2016, 06:37 AM
Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has stated that “baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism” and that no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States.[1]

Rest of the article here:

http://www.awea.org/issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5453

Steve McMahon
09-12-2016, 01:48 PM
Currently wind turbines are the only hope we have to generate large amounts of electricity with the least environmental impact. Do they fail - yes, they are machines. When they fail the damage is small and very localized. Do other types of power generation machinery also fail -yup. I'll take a failed wind turbine 1km from my house over a failed coal plant, nuke, gas turbine or hydro dam 1km from my house any day. Many European countries successfully generate a large portion of their electricity with wind despite their disadvantage of being geographically small compared to Canada, The US, or Australia. Sadly we are too stunned to follow their lead in a big way and feel we need to reinvent the wheel. They are also miles ahead of us on smart grid technologies but we are again too stunned to follow their lead.

Gerarddm
09-12-2016, 02:13 PM
#17: Suggest you read Soft Energy Paths.

Chip-skiff
09-12-2016, 02:26 PM
How much wildlife habitat has been wrecked by surface mining and transport infrastructure?

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/strip-mine.jpg

By land and water pollution from mines and toxic spills?

http://www.mathbench.umd.edu/modules/env-science_mountaintop/graphics-final/MartinCounty.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spill

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/09/09/world/10russia3/10russia3-master768.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/world/europe/russia-red-river-siberia-norilsk-nickel.html?_r=0

By petroleum exploration and development?

https://slowdownfracking.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/landscape1.jpg

Then consider the 5.5 million deaths each year caused by air pollution, largely from fossil fuels, especially coal.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/14059/production/_87090028_58caba82-71cc-4a2f-a065-d0a7e3de9799.jpg

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249
(http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249)

ahp
09-12-2016, 02:31 PM
I wonder how many people coal has killed, and continues to kill. Oh and that's not even thinking about climate change.

I remember an article in Scientific American several years ago that stated that the average dirty old coal fired power plant before EPA caused about 80 premature deaths per year.

Michael D. Storey
09-12-2016, 02:35 PM
I looked at those crash and burns. I was of the slant that they were rather orderly and confined, especially when compared to something like Three Mile Island. I reckon that a large number of discrete units would have that advantage over a single large unit.

Chip-skiff
09-12-2016, 10:19 PM
Disclosure: Six months ago, I bought stock in a major wind turbine manufacturer: VESTAS WIND SYSTEM ADR (OTCMKTS:VWDRY).

The stock is at present up 33.38% over purchase price.

How are your coal stocks doing?

The Bigfella
09-12-2016, 11:00 PM
Yup.


Ha ha, Garbanzo can (maybe) read six words out of 59. Mr 10% comprehension. Yeah, that fits

Phil Y
09-12-2016, 11:02 PM
And yes , in time I'm sure we can do without coal , without bankrupting the country.
Rob J.

I don't think we have time Rob, probably already too late in many ways. If some unreliability, higher cost and price instability is the consequence of dumping coal fired power, I'm more than willing to pay that cost. It's much cheaper than the alternative, the true cost of which will haunt us in years to come.

Phil Y
09-13-2016, 12:52 AM
The reality is at the moment , Victoria could never do without brown coal generated power , and either could SA.
That is the honest truth , wouldn't you agree ?.

Rob J.

Actually no. SA no longer has a coal generator, and if they ran it, has sufficient gas and alternate capacity for all our needs. It might be a bit hard getting weaned off coal, but its absolutely doable.

skuthorp
09-13-2016, 04:10 AM
Fukushima (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html?frame=3466242)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03466/fukushima-radioact_3466228k.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html?frame=3466242)

Ohio
http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/12/03_Coal-plant_sRGB.jpg

Brazil, boat on a river
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6962168-3x2-700x467.jpg

I suspect that wind turbines are the least we should worry about.

We've been making undisciplined withdrawals from the fossil bank for some centuries, and the results are upon us.

Phil Y
09-13-2016, 04:50 AM
What about the power SA bought from Victoria Phil , that came from a coal fired generator.
Rob J.
Yes, but I think that was just because the slobs running the gas fired Torrens Island power station didn't crank it up. That's why I say we have plenty of capacity, if we run it. In the current market if coal,is cheaper, that's where we go, and bugger the consequences. I think that's negligent.

Phil Y
09-13-2016, 04:55 AM
My point Jeff is that we are yet to get reliable base power.
You can close down the coal power stations , stop exporting coal , have a big communal w-nk about saving the planet.
And bring the country to its knees.
We have to do better than that , surely.
Rob J.
Pretty offensive there mate. Concern about the future of the planet is hardly a wank. If you want to play it that way, it's only a few ultra conservative DH's who think coal is worth protecting. It's a dirty, inefficient, highly subsidised and destructive way of generating power. Mostly supported only by unbelievably stupid, short sighted idiots with vested interests, or so dumb they can't see past the trash promulgated by the government and corporate power brokers. I can understand your view being distorted by an irrational hatred of nearby wind turbines, but that hardly helps the merits of your position.

Chris249
09-13-2016, 05:48 AM
Portland, what is so wrong with using wind power when you can, and (for the present time) coal when you have to? Surely that is part of finding a way off coal power without breaking the country?

How does one say wind farms are "inefficient" compared to coal, if one takes into account the "efficiencies" of destroying vast tracts of otherwise valuable land and churning out greenhouse gases?

FWIW the average income in this country is extremely high and we've just had a record-breaking period without a recession. Of course there are issues, but it's not as if it's teetering on the edge of complete collapse in the short term. However, if we don't take care of the environment in the long term there are no guarantees.

PeterSibley
09-13-2016, 05:51 AM
Yep, the farmers on the Liverpool plains have views on that.

WX
09-13-2016, 06:14 AM
Wind farms are just part of the equation. You add solar, tidal, wave, thermal, hydro and a whole raft of others and you have continuous power.

Garret
09-13-2016, 06:15 AM
Have mistakes been made in siting wind farms? Heck yes. Wind is a relatively new (electrical) power source after all. Just because a few wind farms have been put up poorly does not make the entire technology bad.

WX
09-13-2016, 06:16 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/six-million-dollar-solar-farm-approved-on-the-nsw-qld-border/7839630

PeterSibley
09-13-2016, 06:20 AM
A few nuclear power stations have been poorly sited too and to much worse effect than inefficiency.

WX
09-13-2016, 06:26 AM
A few nuclear power stations have been poorly sited too and to much worse effect than inefficiency.


They cost as much to decommission as they earn in power generation...not to mention long term storage of the waste. Something this country has not been able to decided on where to do it since the 50s.

PeterSibley
09-13-2016, 06:35 AM
If people don't want wind turbines next door they sure don't want nuclear power stations, nuclear waste storage or coal mines..... or coal fired power stations.

peb
09-13-2016, 06:47 AM
Here in Texas we are generating 16% of our electricity by wind. That's not too bad. Going forward, they are predicting solar farms to be just as big. My son is a petroleum engineer for a large premium basin production company. He told me last week they are getting into the solar business. Two large farms are being planned.

Its interesting how much our deregulated electricity laws have spurred the renewable installations. Tax credits make a huge difference, yet those are available in neighboring states, yet we are installing much more wind (and soon to be solar). Here, electrical generators get more (as much as 25 cents) per kilowatt hour during peak demand times. this corresponds to the middle of afternoon when wind power is really effective. Hence, the economics work well.



We might be 40-50% wind/solar in 10 years

Michael D. Storey
09-13-2016, 07:05 AM
I'm between 2 wind farms , and the simple fact of the matter is that the wind turbines spend a lot of time stationary , or hardly moving, because of the lack of wind.
It doesn't matter how environmentaly friendly they are , if they aren't working , if they are an unreliable source of power , they are worth SFA.
Rob J.Wind, 1,000 feet in the air, blows all of the time. That is where the farms should be. An important thing to consider here is that there is no silver bullet to energy. Whereas we have survived for a century on petroleum-based products, where a lot of energy is stored in a relatively small space, we are finding the the costs are too high for good health and good economics and good climate. The alternatives work, but they, like fossil fueled stations, have drawbacks. That does not 'prove' that they are not valuable. What is needed is an array of power sources, placed closer to where the power is used. I remember sailing on Lake Ontario, when the Van Lare coal plant belonging to Rochester Gas & Electric would fail to scrub the sulphur and soot out of the exhaust, as long as the wind was from the south, thereby saving their short-run economics by dumping that crap into the Lake. Two miles out, you could feel it and taste it.
A wind station, or a tidal station, if the circumstances and spatial considerations are right, could be build closer to habitation without these considerations.
Also, current power transmission consumes over 20% of the power generated. If the generation station were closer, the loss would be less. That calculation would go far to show the utility of wind and solar and tidal, but is currently not part of the equation.
I personally do not understand why people are afraid of these other sources of electrical power. What is the downside of wind, solar & tidal generation? Concerned about birds? It is an established fact that road vehicles kill far more birds than what do wind generators. Also, consider that the long blade design is antiquated, and will most liokely not be produced in ten years. The situation where Canada geese get their necks shortened by these blades is a short-term problem.
Don't make me go on, here.

peb
09-13-2016, 07:08 AM
Where are the towers/turbines/blades made ?.
And the solar arrays?.
I would hope you have the economy of scale to have them made in the USA , thus creating jobs.
Here , the jobs created are in china.
Rob J.



I dont know for sure. I am pretty sure the towers and rotors are built in the US. The generators come from all over, mainly Europe. I do recall GE having a large generator plant in the US.

Garret
09-13-2016, 07:26 AM
I dont know for sure. I am pretty sure the towers and rotors are built in the US. The generators come from all over, mainly Europe. I do recall GE having a large generator plant in the US.

Most of your towers come from Iowa. Turbines are increasingly US made as US companies wake up & smell the coffee. One source I've seen said that in 2007 25% of installed turbines were made in the US. That's up to 72% now. http://grist.org/business-technology/more-of-americas-wind-turbines-are-actually-being-built-in-america/

AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) has some interesting info: http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059

WX
09-13-2016, 07:43 AM
I agree with you , we , all of us , need to be smarter in our decision making.
Not banging in windtowers in inappropriate areas , to hopefully boost local jobs.
Build whatever is appropriate , and efficient.
I liked the decision making in an Australian Navy base in WA.
A state with power , and water issues.
So , they commissioned a self contained wave power setup , that gave them all of the power they need , and water from the incorporated desalination plant .
THAT is smart thinking !.
Rob J.


They're building one in Jervis Bay I think.

LeeG
09-13-2016, 08:19 AM
Methinks the conundrum is whether homo saps is capable of reducing demand on fossil sources when the economy is based on increasing demand to sustain growth/debt and our psychology is geared towards consuming a resource until it's depleted. Until the demand side is addressed looking for "alternatives" that are made with fossil fuels to generate electricity is not going to do much to reduce emissions.

peb
09-13-2016, 08:51 AM
Methinks the conundrum is whether homo saps is capable of reducing demand on fossil sources when the economy is based on increasing demand to sustain growth/debt and our psychology is geared towards consuming a resource until it's depleted. Until the demand side is addressed looking for "alternatives" that are made with fossil fuels to generate electricity is not going to do much to reduce emissions.

I am not sure how psychology has much to do with it. History certainly does not indicate we consume resources until they are depleted. Economically, history suggests that when as one resource becomes scarce, we transition to another and the original never becomes completely depleted. Its harder this time, but on the other hand, the state of technology advances work in our favor.

LeeG
09-13-2016, 09:00 AM
I am not sure how psychology has much to do with it. History certainly does not indicate we consume resources until they are depleted. Economically, history suggests that when as one resource becomes scarce, we transition to another and the original never becomes completely depleted. Its harder this time, but on the other hand, the state of technology advances work in our favor.

look at any chart of energy source and utilization for the US and tell me the alternative to fossil fuels. Every alternative to crude oil costs more or comes from coal and gas. What's the follow on replacement for fossil fuels that is cheaper and more energy dense? We have replaced renewables, that did get depleted locally, with non-renewables. What's the replacement?
Technology isn't an energy source.

Psychology has a lot to do with human behavior.

Michael D. Storey
09-13-2016, 05:18 PM
I agree with you , we , all of us , need to be smarter in our decision making.
Not banging in windtowers in inappropriate areas , to hopefully boost local jobs.
Build whatever is appropriate , and efficient.
I liked the decision making in an Australian Navy base in WA.
A state with power , and water issues.
So , they commissioned a self contained wave power setup , that gave them all of the power they need , and water from the incorporated desalination plant .
THAT is smart thinking !.
Rob J.Was it ever. Think what a large scale solar desalinization set up in Palestine would mean. They could export food. Talk about creating jobs. Give anybody enough food and a future and they will want peace for their farm, their family and ....hey, I could go on here.

Chris249
09-13-2016, 05:59 PM
Portland, I don't think any of us are limiting the dialogue, merely saying that wind can be part of the mix.

Chris249
09-13-2016, 06:10 PM
I am not sure how psychology has much to do with it. History certainly does not indicate we consume resources until they are depleted. Economically, history suggests that when as one resource becomes scarce, we transition to another and the original never becomes completely depleted. Its harder this time, but on the other hand, the state of technology advances work in our favor.

Well, looking at things close to the subject matter of this forum, the best boatbuilding timbers in Australia (Australian cedar and Huon pine) are completely depleted, as far as commercial use goes. Many other things, such as many wild animals, have also been effectively completely depleted or (as in the case of the dodo and passenger pigeon) actually driven to extinction.

Our history demonstrates that we can and do deplete our resources.

Too Little Time
09-13-2016, 06:15 PM
Hence, the economics work well.

Wind and solar have serious issues with regulation. Supply needs to match demand. That is hard to do when wind or solar is a large part of the supply. Backup power - turbines, does not react fast enough. Batteries may work fast enough. But we will see.

LeeG
09-13-2016, 06:24 PM
Well, looking at things close to the subject matter of this forum, the best boatbuilding timbers in Australia (Australian cedar and Huon pine) are completely depleted, as far as commercial use goes. Many other things, such as many wild animals, have also been effectively completely depleted or (as in the case of the dodo and passenger pigeon) actually driven to extinction.

Our history demonstrates that we can and do deplete our resources.

Yeah, I didn't get Pebs response.

Chris249
09-13-2016, 06:30 PM
And solar array farms too have been mooted , but to my knowledge , haven't started here yet.


There's a second solar array farm going in around here at the moment. Yes, the company that is involved is from overseas, but that's probably because Australian companies have failed to follow up on the excellent lead given by Australian researchers in solar energy.

Australia as a whole is richer than ever before in many ways and we've had our longest-ever period without a recession. This is surely a reasonably good time to start addressing environmental issues, perhaps by measures such as encouraging more local commercial development of the hardware for renewable energy by maintaining subsidies.

skuthorp
09-13-2016, 09:42 PM
Like wind power, wireless technology, the black box etc Australian business and finance has allowed solar research technology to go OS for want of investment. The energy companies are on the public teat here, and have no incentive, and the political parties get big donations not to rock the boat. It will come here, but we will be the client, not the producers.

Michael D. Storey
09-14-2016, 08:05 AM
Wind and solar have serious issues with regulation. Supply needs to match demand. That is hard to do when wind or solar is a large part of the supply. Backup power - turbines, does not react fast enough. Batteries may work fast enough. But we will see.The need for consistency of the power supply is real. In the short run, these sources of power could slow, or halt, the construction of more fossils, and allow for generation to happen much closer to, but not next to, the areas where the power is used. In the meanwhile, I would suggest that gravity can be used to store power, along the lines of what the Storm King Mountain proposal would have done. That was in the wrong location, however. The greatest demand for power is during daylight hours, when, of course, solar shines best.

bheys
09-14-2016, 01:30 PM
There are wind power generation concepts under development that bear little resemblance to the current generation of wind turbines. Tapping into the wind at higher altitudes has the potential to open wind power to areas of the globe that are currently unsuitable for wind power. Google X purchased Makani in 2013. The Makani concept uses tethered kites flying at relatively high altitude. These kites reach altitude by DC powered props. Once at height the props become generators. The kites are very active in flight and derive significant power as if they were the tip of a turbine blade - where most of the power is generated. The video shows at 17' wingspan kite. The company is now preparing to test a much larger kite. Needless to say, they are operating in a very secretive and secure mode, but to me the information that has been released is quite exciting. Full disclosure: my son works for Makani.
https://www.google.com/makani/technology/