Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 9:51pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 19 2018 9:15pm
:shock: :?: California has one of the highest power costs of any state !
Luckily the CA grid is connected to neighbouring states such that it can import the 20+% of power that it fails to generate internally !
I am talking about the US as a whole. Drastically increasing renewables, and a more reliable grid than ever. Surely Australia can figure it out too.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 19 2018 10:58pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 19 2018 8:12pm
It seem the state of electricity generation in S. Aus is rather different to that painted in this thread:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austra ... ar-201617/
http://reneweconomy.com.au/busting-more ... lar-61495/

It seems wind and solar are reducing demand peaks and doing so cost effectively (or at least as well as fossil-burning states within a broken electricity market). It is also going to be getting a few hundred MW of additional generating capacity (wind and solar). The Torens Island gas plant is being replaced by the diesel plant because it's aged and unreliable.
Do you believe all internet sources ?....
Cost effectively ?
SA is widely accepted as having the highest electricity price in the world currently !
Other Au states are not far behind because it is a combined market with the costs for rebates and RET added to all consumers bills.
The existing Torrens island plant is not old by thermal plant standards and will remain in service for many years yet.
The new Diesel plant give the operator access to the high priced "fast response" market that is now resulted from the RE introduction.
If it were just age etc , why dont they replace the entire plant with one of similar capacity ?
The Owners , AGL, are also prematurely closing several fossil fueled plants in order to get more market share from higher paying RE generation due to the Rebate schemes in play.
Get ready for 80% RE by 2022! :D
80% "installed capacity". Certainly....
.....but they will never reach 80% RE supply !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 19 2018 11:06pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 9:51pm
I am talking about the US as a whole. Drastically increasing renewables, and a more reliable grid than ever. Surely Australia can figure it out too.
The US as a whole ??... Has only 11% wind and solar combined. ! :roll:
Lets discuss it seriously when it gets to 50+% !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 20 2018 11:12am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 19 2018 11:06pm
The US as a whole ??... Has only 11% wind and solar combined.
And doubling every 3-4 years. We are definitely headed in the right direction.
--bill von

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 925
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 20 2018 11:30am

USA electrical production for 2016 was wind 6% and solar 1%. Hydro 7%, Gas 34%, coal 30%, nuclear 20%.
.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ind ... ted_states
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 20 2018 4:21pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 20 2018 11:12am
And doubling every 3-4 years. ....
So, in 10 yrs, you think the US will have ~50% wind + solar ?
Im willing to speculate the US never gets to that level.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 925
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 20 2018 4:38pm

Wind and solar in China for example is predicted to barely keep up with growth for the next 30 years. The USA will be similar. India will be using considerable more fossil fuel in 30 years than now. And then we will all start to run low without having made enough changes to the way we live.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 20 2018 4:46pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 20 2018 4:21pm
So, in 10 yrs, you think you may have ~50% wind + solar ?
Im willing to speculate the US never gets to that level.
Probably not. We will likely get to about 50% _renewables_ - not 50% wind and solar - in ~12 years (i.e. including hydro)

If you want to speculate on just wind and solar we'll get to about 35-40% in 12 years and then growth will slow down; at that point it will be limited by available storage and dispatchable load. Utilities will start to pair each new utility-scale solar/wind array with a specific new load, either a BESS/pumped storage facility or a dispatchable load (like a desalinator or thermal storage system.) That will both raise costs and increase installation times.

Political considerations (like administrations that try to stop renewables) can also slow that down, of course.

Another "spoiler" could be some form of cheap nuclear power - but if history is any record that's out at least 10 years, probably closer to 20.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 20 2018 6:42pm

I cannot see Hydro increasing significantly,
...all the "easy" developments have been done so any future hydro will be limited and have a tough economic case.
Further, it the climate alarmists are to be believed, there may not be a much river flows to feed existing hydro....many of which are already supply limited by water availability.
Pumped hydro storage is both expensive, and has limited site availability as well as being a net power consumer rather than generator.
New Tech Nuclear will be intoduced eventually, most likely much sooner in Asia, India, China, Russia, etc,..than in the West due to out political and social barriers.
The balance of power, will litteraly shift to the East !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 20 2018 6:51pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 20 2018 6:42pm
I cannot see Hydro increasing significantly,
...all the "easy" developments have been done so any future hydro will be limited and have a tough economic case.
Further, it the climate alarmists are to be believed, there may not be a much river flows to feed existing hydro....many of which are already supply limited by water availability.
Water availability for hydro is improved with intermittent renewables. Hydro can be throttled rapidly and completely, so as long as the lake stores a significant amount of water (i.e. more than a few days) then every megawatt-hour of generation during the day is a megawatt-hour of water that doesn't have to be used. I've seen a few proposals for adding generation to existing dams, so that they can generate more power for shorter amounts of time (i.e. when intermittents cut out.)
New Tech Nuclear will be intoduced eventually, most likely much sooner in Asia, India, China, Russia, etc,..than in the West due to out political and social barriers.
Probably true. But then that technology becomes available to us as well. Still, it has to be cheaper than natural gas to make any headway here no matter how technologically cool it is.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 20 2018 8:10pm

Sure, more generation (of any sort) can help to conserve water supply for hydro.
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 925
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 20 2018 10:05pm

It is intersting to see the degree of flexibility that California has with control of their hydro from near zero during the solar peak, to filling in the pre and post sun portions of the daytime demand, and then back to a maintenance level of whatever is left for the night, with some saved for the next day's pre sun surge.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... Code=US-CA
.
Too bad we can't see the North West USA grid info which has a large percentage of wind and hydro.
.
It was sunny in Germany today but even with that they weren't able to get below 480gm/ kWh and are running at 530gm tonight.
.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 20 2018 10:18pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 19 2018 9:44pm
It was windy in Australia yesterday. Germany not so much. Still averaging above 500gm/ kWh.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... tryCode=DE
.
Yeah the thing I have noticed is when there is some good wind in SA and Victoria and I can see it on electricitymap, I actually notice it in Melbourne with tree branches falling down and general destruction from storm like conditions and you can see it in the news as well
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... cca97a98c5
So it seems like you need destructive level winds to get a good day of wind energy generation.

Yes Germany data is back, and like I have pointed out, it went out and returned while the wind is dubiously low, I screenshotted this yesterday, right now they are at 10%
But I think screenshotting this stuff is important because generally folks like to imagine wind-farms always generating energy at their full promised capacity, you just can't try and drill through that enough IMO.
2018-02-19 (2).png
2018-02-19 (2).png (51.11 KiB) Viewed 795 times
In South Australia a new political party has released its first advert, Nick Xenophon used to be an independent for a SA seat in the Federal government but he has quit Federal politics as an independent to become a State political party leader with a new political party called "SA Best"
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... da34b3e48e
The advert is incredibly cheesy.
https://youtu.be/BggQfcbjpZ8

It's a frequently pointed out claim that a lot of people especially young people are leaving South Australia due to no jobs and unaffordable energy as the video portrays with a couple with the luggage stroller about to leave..

Also seeing this video reminds me of the time around 7 years ago when I was bombarded on Facebook with friends sharing Facebook wind-farm memes, saying "500 of these could power all of Australia" or something ridiculous like that, its all just so dumb but very powerful stuff.

Nick Xenophon is expected to be very successful in this SA state election which shows you how bad the state of politics is in SA.

To me it looks like the politicians only work hard enough to a level where they can be expected to just slide into power, and when so many people worship political parties like their favorite football team, that means you don't have to work very hard or do a very good job at all. It's the incredible tribalism that exists in the human mind of taking sides in politics causes so many problems. I think a decent percentage of folks in SA would even only be supporters of renewables because it's their favorite political parties policy, as the bias overrides logic as the tribalistic part of the brain takes over.
Reminds me of this guys speech on why democracy is working https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcKck8EZrg


Overall I see it as a more healthy sign that a different political party like Nick Xenophons SA-best party becomes popular because it smashes that football team mentality as it brute forces the voter to think for themselves and who they are voting for instead of voting the same way their parents did.

One thing I wanted to do was go over all of Germany's renewable generation that I started in this post with their wind https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewt ... 0#p1358107
Germany wind capacity 49.6GW (49,600MW)
Generated 2017: 103.65TWh
There are 1,000,000MWh in 1TWh.
103.65TWh = (103,650,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 11,824MW average power generation (11.8GW)
So ( 11,824MW / 49,600MW ) x 100 = 23.8% capacity factor

Solar
Germany Solar capacity: 40.7GW (40,700MW)
Generated 2017: 38.39TWh
(38,390,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 4,379MW average power generation (4.37GW)
So ( 4,379MW / 40,700MW ) x 100 = 10.7% capacity factor for solar.
If you went into a restaurant and asked for a steak dinner that was 10% of its advertised size, you wouldn't buy it.

Biomass
Germany Biomass generation capacity: 9.5GW (9,500MW)
Generated 2017: 47.61TWh
47.61TWh = (47,610,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 5,431MW average power generation (5.4GW)
So ( 5,431MW / 9,500MW ) x 100 = 57.1% capacity factor
Much better number, kind of like a McDonalds burger being a bit smaller than you expected but close.

This is the twisted reality of renewables in Germany and that is burning trees/plants for Biomass thermal generation kicks the wind and solars arse. And the really valuable thing about biomass is that you can get power when you want it instead of hoping for favorable weather which tends to run with murphys law.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2017
2018-02-10 (3a).png
2018-02-10 (3a).png (83.5 KiB) Viewed 776 times
The thing I wondered about in Germany is there must of been some energy experts who assessed solar in Germany and probably told Angela Merkel that what the end result will be is 10% of the general claimed capacity, and they obviously thought stuff it, lets build it anyway, maybe because thats what the voters wanted/voted for or something along those lines. But it's still pretty crazy.

When trying to actually look at deployed solar in Germany via googlemaps the official list of solar farms in Germany on Wikipedia is tiny but almost all of them have been placed on where forests once sat.
Lookin at houses/apartment roofs, very little of them have solar panels on them. The one place where I did find a lot of solar panel deployment was on very large roofs, these are typically large box stores/shopping centers or industrial roofs. I think this makes sense as you can deploy a lot more solar in one go and reduce installation time and inverter costs/management by bunching up the deployments instead of the Australian style of forcing tiny deployments on every single house roof.
When looking for these solar panels this is typical of what I see for the official solar farms where its just been cut down forest for the solar deployment to 'help the environment'.
https://goo.gl/maps/aibvQFczrcL2

I found a biomass power-plant in Germany from a company called VMM Umwelt, these are hard to find, none of them are listed on Wikipedia. This one is both a biomass and waste treatment plant.
https://goo.gl/maps/YugZNaXPvF82
2018-02-21a.jpg
2018-02-21a.jpg (180.13 KiB) Viewed 769 times
Someone uploaded a photo of the main biomass bit to the googlemaps photos section
https://goo.gl/maps/gw5EvXzysm52
MVV_20639a.jpg
MVV_20639a.jpg (82.51 KiB) Viewed 765 times
Last edited by TheBeastie on Feb 23 2018 2:06am, edited 2 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range https://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear https://goo.gl/ZhFFot
https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 21 2018 4:25pm

...
I found a biomass power-plant in Germany from a company called VMM Umwelt, these are hard to find, none of them are listed on Wikipedia. This one is both a biomass and waste treatment plant....
How many of these "Biomass". generation plants simply garbage incinerators with thermal generators attached ?
There is a big debate here currently with one of the big garbage companies proposing to build just that in western Sydney...a garbage incinerator with thermal power plant incorporated .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 925
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 21 2018 5:30pm

We have a garbage burning generation plant that I drive past every day. I should see if they offer tours. Is this really any worse than burning coal. At least all of this stuff is already riding around in a truck with not much better place to go. Don't have to dig it up first. People just need to sort their recyclable light bulbs and batteries, ect, out of their trash so they don't go up the chimney.
.
https://ocrra.org/services/dispose/waste-to-energy/
.

Addy   100 W

100 W
Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 11 2017 11:15am
Location: BC, Canada

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Addy » Feb 21 2018 5:48pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 21 2018 5:30pm
We have a garbage burning generation plant that I drive past every day. I should see if they offer tours. Is this really any worse than burning coal. At least all of this stuff is already riding around in a truck with not much better place to go. Don't have to dig it up first. People just need to sort their recyclable light bulbs and batteries, ect, out of their trash so they don't go up the chimney.
.
https://ocrra.org/services/dispose/waste-to-energy/
.
I've been on a tour at a local garbage burning generation plant. Inside the plant, crane operators load garbage from piles dumped by trucks and they have to watch out for the occasional propane tank or other items that are best kept out of the incinerator. They also have to worry about the piles of trash going up in flames, so the garbage loading area has a very good fire suppression system.

The plant has a very extensive filter system which is used to clean the incinerator exhaust.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 21 2018 7:45pm

Personally i have no problem with garbage incineration, i believe its better than landfil garbage and hopeing it doesnt cause a contamination or gas problem in the future,( plus it is not sustainable.)
Also it would seem sensible to recover at least some of the energy that went into much of the garbage, and im sure there are tight emmission controls imposed for some of the unknown substances likely incinerated.
However,..i think claiming it as "Biomass" RE, is very different to burning woodchips or lanfil/methane gas. (Both of which have dubious RE credibility !)
Now,..if we could just harness (and prevent) these bushfires, we would solve the energy issue in one go ! :wink:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 21 2018 11:03pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 20 2018 8:10pm
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
Hence the proposals for adding a lot more generation to existing dams.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 22 2018 1:24am

billvon wrote:
Feb 21 2018 11:03pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 20 2018 8:10pm
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
Hence the proposals for adding a lot more generation to existing dams.
Unless you have a suplus of water that you currently run through spillways, more generation will not increase total capacity (GWhs).
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 22 2018 1:41am

This is an interesting graphic of Australias electricity prices (indexed) over time 1955 to date with some key events noted.
Also the timing of the introduction of wind & solar in quantity starting 2005.
But be aware , even the 18 TWh of RE shown is small compared to the 230+ TWh of total annual power consumed .
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 22 2018 10:07am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 22 2018 1:24am
billvon wrote:
Feb 21 2018 11:03pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 20 2018 8:10pm
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
Hence the proposals for adding a lot more generation to existing dams.
Unless you have a suplus of water that you currently run through spillways, more generation will not increase total capacity (GWhs).
?? You yourself mentioned how you will get the surplus of water - "Sure, more generation (of any sort) can help to conserve water supply for hydro."
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 24 2018 7:14pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 22 2018 10:07am
?? You yourself mentioned how you will get the surplus of water - "Sure, more generation (of any sort) can help to conserve water supply for hydro."
Big difference between "surplus" ..and "conserve"..

And...some light reading for you..
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/201 ... xperiment/
......Australians formerly enjoyed one of the world’s lowest-cost energy markets. Not anymore. In nine years, retail prices in the National Electricity Market (NEM) are up 80-90%. In just two years, business electricity costs doubled, even tripled, resulting in staff lay-offs, relocations and industry closures......
.......although the cost Australia paid is steep, the carbon savings are puny. Carbon dioxide emitted by the NEM fell by 20 million tonnes over the last decade, all of it in the five years from 2009.[19] At the same time, China’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 2,293 million tonnes, an average increase of 38 million tonnes a month.[20] In other words, the painful savings made by the NEM are equivalent to less than 16 days of the increase in China’s carbon dioxide emissions – ...
.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 925
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 24 2018 7:54pm

"In 1970, a two-day seminar of opinion leaders at the Aspen Institute concluded that modern technology, greedy men and complacent governments were threatening the future of a decent and civilised world. ‘All insist that the human family is approaching an historic crisis which will require fundamental revisions in the organisation of society,"
.
This will be true. We just haven't reached the diminishing point of a 100 year steady increase in access to oil yet. 30? years left to work out a new plan and get it done. Transportable, high quality energy underpins everything.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 25 2018 12:53am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 24 2018 7:14pm
Big difference between "surplus" ..and "conserve"..
Yes, there is. If you conserve enough water, you see surpluses.

Most dams have some amount of storage (i.e. they are not run-of-river.) If you need power 24 hours a day, you draw that storage down. If you need it for only 12 hours a day, you have doubled your storage time. And if you need full power for only 3 hours a day (i.e. 6 to 9 pm, the "hump" of the duck curve) then you extend it further still. You turn a hydro plant limited by water supply into a hydro plant limited by available generation.

At that point, you either re-power or add generators. Now your 1GW dam is a 2GW dam, but its AVERAGE power is lower than before, because you are getting energy from other (intermittent) sources of generation. And since hydro plants are among the fastest startup plants out there, your ramp time problem is greatly diminished.

In places like Socal where water is in short supply this is a win-win. Since energy equals water you use less water, but get more peak power.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9266
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 25 2018 5:51am

Hmmm ?
.....
A study commissioned by the Renewable Energy Foundation has found that the economic life of onshore wind turbines could be far less than that predicted by the industry.
The “groundbreaking” research was carried out by academics at Edinburgh University and saw them look at years of windfarm performance data from the UK and Denmark.
The results appear to show that the output from windfarms — allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics — declines substantially as they get older.
By 10 years of age, the report found that the contribution of an average UK windfarm towards meeting electricity demand had declined by a third.
That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years — at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan.....
https://stopthesethings.files.wordpress ... -12-12.pdf

.....Also, unforseen issues with German wind turbines
......Ørsted’s wind farm at Anholt was completed in 2013. The turbines’ blades are so worn down already that they have to be brought to land and repaired.
Ørsted must repair up to 2,000 wind turbine blades because the leading edge of the blades have become worn down after just a few years at sea.
The company has a total of 646 wind turbines from Siemens Gamesa, which may potentially be affected to some extent, Ørsted confirmed.
The wind turbine owner will not disclose the bill, but says that the financial significance is “small”.

Siemens Gamesa also does not want to comment on the costs, but the company’s Danish subsidiary has just provided 4.5 billion Danish Krone ($750 million) or 16% of its revenue to guarantee its commitments. .....
....
However, it is far from just the Anholt Park that is affected. The blades at several British Ørsted offshore wind farms must also be repaired after just a few years on the water.....
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply