New Wind Farms Cheaper Than Even Existing Coal Plants

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-4, Lee wrote in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:

It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm
than to keep a coal plant running
June 3

Inflation dictates that the cost of living
will continue to rise — except, it seems,
when it comes to renewable energy. The cost
of building a new utility-scale solar or
wind farm has now dropped below the cost of
operating an existing coal plant, according
to an analysis by the investment bank Lazard.
Accounting for government tax credits and
other energy incentives would bring the cost
even lower.

The LCOE for coal this year is between $27
and $45 per megawatt. That figure is $29 to
$56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a
solar farm, depending on the technology used.

Wind power costs have dropped as utilities
have turned to bigger and bigger turbines,
which can produce more energy. The largest
turbines installed today can produce double
the power they could've a decade ago,
according to the Energy Information
Administration, dramatically increasing the
amount of power a parcel of land can produce.
Wind and solar installation has also gotten
more competitive, driving the development of
more efficient technology.

Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms
typically require fewer people to run than
a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing
their cost.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-th
an-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/?fbclid=IwAR0DlGYi6fm2aDJpi8QanFNfyEQr4b
F-R_llyRTJL9IW_v80XixQ0LngsAQ&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_con
tent=link&ICID=ref_fark

New Wind And Solar Now Cheaper Than 74% Of Existing US Coal Plants, Study Says
Electrek-Mar 27, 2019
-- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/

'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place

 

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 02:52:42 UTC+1, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-4, Lee wrote in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm
than to keep a coal plant running
June 3

Inflation dictates that the cost of living
will continue to rise — except, it seems,
when it comes to renewable energy. The cost
of building a new utility-scale solar or
wind farm has now dropped below the cost of
operating an existing coal plant, according
to an analysis by the investment bank Lazard.
Accounting for government tax credits and
other energy incentives would bring the cost
even lower.

The LCOE for coal this year is between $27
and $45 per megawatt. That figure is $29 to
$56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a
solar farm, depending on the technology used.

Wind power costs have dropped as utilities
have turned to bigger and bigger turbines,
which can produce more energy. The largest
turbines installed today can produce double
the power they could've a decade ago,
according to the Energy Information
Administration, dramatically increasing the
amount of power a parcel of land can produce.
Wind and solar installation has also gotten
more competitive, driving the development of
more efficient technology.

Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms
typically require fewer people to run than
a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing
their cost.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-th
an-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/?fbclid=IwAR0DlGYi6fm2aDJpi8QanFNfyEQr4b
F-R_llyRTJL9IW_v80XixQ0LngsAQ&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_con
tent=link&ICID=ref_fark

New Wind And Solar Now Cheaper Than 74% Of Existing US Coal Plants, Study Says
Electrek-Mar 27, 2019
-- https://electrek.co/2019/03/27/wind-solar-cheaper-coal/

'damn' liberals kickin' your ass all over the place

If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.


NT

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 6/5/19 11:56 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
> If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.

First off, learn how to use your editor.
There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two
previous posts.

Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for
gas and coal.

As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed
bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.

Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak>

Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as
to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.

Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various
facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.

But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.




--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 06:52:50 UTC+1, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

On 6/5/19 11:56 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

If any reader thinks a megawatt of intermittent wind power can > replace a megawatt of coal, gas or nuclear, they really don't get it.

First off, learn how to use your editor.
There's absolutely NO reason what so ever to include the entire two
previous posts.

funny guy

Secondly, wind is no more or less stable then the supply chains for
gas and coal.

Massively wrong. That's the whole problem with wind

As a matter fact, several major coal companies have either filed
bankruptcy, or have shut down entirely.

Sure, nothing to do with wind of course

Natural gas ain't exactly fool proof either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak

No method is foolproof, or ever was.

Wind farms are expensive, they tend to do a serious site survey as
to the constant values of wind speed. I.e. 24/7 availability.

There is no 24/7 availability. That's the problem.

Then, of course, you had clowns like Enron shutting down various
facilities just to increase the spot pricing of electricity.

What has that to do with the viability of windpower.

> But go ahead, keep finding fault in that which you don't understand.

Your points are either irrelevant or wrong.


NT

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Jeff:

Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.

The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.

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

It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 12:14:36 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:

Jeff:

Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance" as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be confused by mere facts.

from the guy that insists the smpsu dissipates more heat than the LEDs it drives

The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.

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

It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed. And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Let's establish some actual facts if we can. Your link says:
"The wind farm has a combined total nameplate capacity of 26 MW, producing about 68,328 megawatt-hours of electricity annually,

26MW x 8760hrs = 227,760 MWh if it ran at 100% capacity, which of course it can't. 68328/227760 MWh = 30% capacity.

A conventional plant with only 30% capacity is a disaster if you need to rely on its output at times. With a wind installation at 30% the operator is not in control of its uptime, that is left to the vagaries of nature. Hence with such generation, to keep the lights on one must have duplicate controllable generation of the same capacity elsewhere - and that makes the wind farm a pointless spending of money. It is nothing more than a political appeal to ignorant greens. To say the windfarm is comparable to a coal plant shows a fundamental level of ignorance of power generation.


NT

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.

Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity. Which is entirely to be inspected as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency, and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.

That is in actual practice. Not theory.

As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now..

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 12:53:01 UTC+1, pf...@aol.com wrote:

> You need to get out of theory and into actual practice. Again, you seem to accumulate only those facts as fit your ignorance.

I see you're keeping up the bs. Let's look at some facts instead...


> Locust ridge is operating with 64 turbines at just under 67% of nameplate capacity.

the numbers you referred to show 30% capacity. No wind farm manages 67%. 30% is good going by wind standards.

> Which is entirely to be inspected

67% of capacity would be an amazing achievement for any windfarm. Even if one day that can be achieved - and the theory indicates it can not - it still would not be able to replace conventional generation.

> as a group of those turbines are typically down for *planned* service & maintenance. The most efficient coal-fired plants on the planet operate at 40% energy-transfer efficiency,

their energy transfer efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with this. Zero relevance.

> and are down, on average, about 30 days per year for maintenance, three times that about every 3-4 years.

Every type of plant goes down for maintenance. Being able to plan that downtime is a lot more useful than being at the mercy of partially-predictable wind.

> That is in actual practice. Not theory.

Well, it isn't but hey.


> As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s) is (are). On the driver? On the emitters?

That you think the SMPSUs used are below 50% efficient shows gross ignorance of lighting products & PSU design. Discussing the heatsink question at the moment seems pointless.

And, most of them make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Some may, and more has been achieved. But the average product in the shops here certainly doesn't.


NT

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 04:52:59 -0700 (PDT), "pfjw@aol.com"
<peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

As with LED drivers - just look at the typical RAB or CREE
exterior LED lamp - and ask yourself where the heat-sink(s)
is (are). On the driver? On the emitters? And, most of them
make 130 lumens per watt, or more... right now.

Specs and tests are so much fun:
<https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/09/ftc-shines-light-companys-deceptive-claims-its-led-bulbs>
For example, one bulb was promoted as producing 90 lumens
of light output, but Lights of America’s own tests showed
it produced only 43 lumens.

...the firm claimed that one of its LED lantern bulbs could
replace a 40-watt incandescent bulb. However, while the
typical 40-watt incandescent bulb produces about 400 lumens,
the Lights of America LED bulb produced only 74 lumens.

Ok, it's not Cree which is a reputable manufacture.

I'm glad you picked Cree exterior LED lights, which I'll interpret at
being Cree spot lights, because I have the a setup that does a
tolerable job of measuring lumens of any lighting that generates a
fairly uniform "spot" on a wall. I wrote this for bicycle lighting:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.bicycles.tech/UJdJQFTDgl8/NgOZUloVCwAJ>
Unfortunately, I don't have any Cree LED spotlights handy, so that
test will need to wait.

Let's try a few Cree random spot and flood lights:
<https://creebulb.com/products/reflector>

<https://creebulb.com/120-watt-replacement-par38-bright-white-spot>
1200 lumens / 19 watts = 63 lum/watt

<https://creebulb.com/120-watt-replacement-par38-cool-white-flood>
1200 lumens / 19 watts = 63 lum/watt

<https://creebulb.com/100-watt-replacement-br30-daylight-flood>
1400 lumens / 16 watts = 75 lum/watt

Hmmm... 63 and 75 lum/watt does not look much like 130 lum/watt.
Got a link to any high efficacy lights?

I think the problem is that you're using the efficiency of the LED
chip itself, while the lighting manufacturers are using the operating
efficieny, which include losses in the inverter and optics. There are
plenty of LED chips that will deliver greater than 100 lum/watt but no
AC powered lighting products.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Jeff:

I am pointing to 'right now' CREE shoebox fixtures for parking lots, as one application. I have installed several thousand in my day- here are specific links:

https://www.rablighting.com/feature/ez-site

https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/clite-area

https://lighting.cree.com/products/outdoor/area/noctura-area

We are in the process of re-lamping/refixturing about 1,000,000 gsf of medical office building and medical school, using LEDs. Our average LPM, net, after retrofitting, is a tad over 100 lm/watt. With the screw-in stuff around 80, the replaced 2x2 and 2x4 fixtures being about 120.

Here is one of those, from a 'regular' supplier accessible by you and I any day, any time. Note that purchased in bulk, the priced goes under $50.

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/207639/PLT-11204.html

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

And, I may as well rub it in some:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201937/LED-8038E40-A.html 142.8 lm/w.

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/201938/LED-8038E57-A.html 157 lm/w

And, in the Dollar-Bin:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208043/PLT-11208.html 83 lm/w

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/208044/PLT-11209.html 83 lm/w

Slightly more costly:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/173772/PLT-10298.html 100 lm/w

Guys and gals - this stuff is off-the-shelf, available to all of us, and without fuss or muss.

Spots and floods for conventional fixtures are something of a special case inasmuch as the emitters may radiate only in one direction in practical application. But, depending on the color, readings in the 70s for lm/w are not uncommon:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/led-par30l-75w-equal-fl-3500K/

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[George Cornelius]

In article <3b066973-fe97-4922-90fd-317782931565@googlegroups.com>,
"pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com> writes:

Tabby gives clear and direct meaning to the term "invincible ignorance"
as no matter how clearly they might be presented, he will not be
confused by mere facts.

Lead with an ad hominem. This is a sure indication of a debater who
is confident in his own case.

The Iberdrola wind farm in Colummbia County, PA has a reliability
record that matches Berwick Nuclear nearby.

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

It will make 'nameplate' at any range from 7 mph to 54 mph wind-speed.
And its site will deliver that 7 all day, every day.

Well that is in interesting remark, so let's examine it.

First of all, let's disregard "nameplate" tricks. If you have a 2 MW
capacity generator and list it on the nameplate as 500KW, you can then
meet some rather impressive performance goals - by mere use of
understatement in your specifications.

But does the "nameplate" claim even make sense?

The physics is that the power - energy flow - per unit cross section
is proportional to wind velocity squared. You state an 8:1 ratio in
velocity over which its nameplate is met. This means over a 64:1
range of input you claim they meet a single fixed output target,
presumably that associated with 7 mph input. So when wind energy
is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
out?

George

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Once again, laboring under the burden of theory rather than practice.

Wind turbines have variable vanes. They rotate at their base from very roughly 60 degrees to the wind to 0 degrees to the wind. At 0, they do not turn, and typically this state is when the wind speeds are too high (exceedingly rare), or the unit is being serviced (and the rotor is locked when under service). At 60 degrees, and with the design minimum wind velocity, it will make the design rotational speed.

Wind turbines do not pretend to use all the energy available. They use a very small fraction of it - but it is essentially "free" energy.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 6/7/19 8:13 AM, George Cornelius wrote:

So when wind energy
is 64 x the minimum, what do you do with the other 63 x - toss it
out?

How is this even a question?

Generation capacity isn't like water, you're like those people that
think electricity is wasted by leaving a light bulb out of a socket
and it will leak out,


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[George Cornelius]

In article <hYGdnZdINuMu9WfBnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> writes:

Generation capacity isn't like water, you're like those people that
think electricity is wasted by leaving a light bulb out of a socket
and it will leak out,

And you are missing the point. The physics of a generator that
can only operate in a low efficiency range is a bizarre one. I
have the capability of designing a generator that can harness all
that energy, but I choose not merely an inefficient one but one
which can only use 1/64 of what an efficient one would use?

I realize that most environmentalists don't have a clue about
physics. But I am asking you to use your head. The numbers
as quoted are so bizarrely out of whack with any reality that
the rest of us inhabit as to clearly indicate that they are
"cooked": deliberately couched in a way to make claims such
as are being made here sound plausible.

We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:03:00 AM UTC-4, George Cornelius wrote:

> We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.

The *numbers* add up perfectly fine, if one takes a fraction of a second to understand the process.

"Harnessing all that energy"? Really? How does that happen exactly? Please describe the mechanics of your proposed system? Positing actual available materials in this 'real world'.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[George Cornelius]

In article <08701b65-6373-4089-a415-872372ce41e8@googlegroups.com>, "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 10:03:00 AM UTC-4, George Cornelius wrote:

We live in the real world, folks. The nubmers don't add up.

The *numbers* add up perfectly fine, if one takes a fraction of a second to understand the process.

"Harnessing all that energy"? Really? How does that happen exactly? Please describe the mechanics of your proposed system? Positing actual available materials in this 'real world'.

Not one sign anywhere of a person who has the slightest understanding of physics. Just people who pretend they
know something because they listened to someone else who pretends to know something.

I took quantum mechanics 50 years ago. Then, as now, the physics of turbines and generators was well
established and not really worthy of the efforts of anyone seriously considering research into what was
really important in science. But of course, plenty of physicists and engineers and other technologists
have made important contributions over the years, all incremental gains, with very little of these gains
really earth-shattering in and of themselves.

One thing that has repeated over and over again in 50 years is the overabundance of blowhards and
gasbags.

I'm interested in learning some new physics, though.

If you can produce one of these much-vaunted nameplates, I would love to see it.

If your wind generator is a turbine, I would love to see its spec sheet. Do you have a name
for the manufacturer, and for the model number being used?

And, of course, there must be a primary contractor. Do they have a web site that describes
the project?

Interesting thing about engineering firms: they don't stay in business for long if their
claims are full of hot air. So how about a pointer to the keepers of the truth, where
there are likely to be cold, hard facts and not merely the nonsense endlessly propagated
by the true believers and their enablers, the purveyors of the hype?

George

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/428-gamesa-g114-2.0mw

https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87

You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)

You would be that whore.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 6/12/19 7:47 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/428-gamesa-g114-2.0mw

https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/turbines/548-gamesa-g87

You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think. (Dorothy Parker)

You would be that whore.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I believe that's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her
think."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

I believe that's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her
think."

I believe Ms. Parker did, in fact, use both versions. We lived in NYC in my youth, and my father was in publishing, editing and translating. Ms. Parker was an infrequent, but not rare, dinner visitor, and even to my young mind, a bit of a verbal dazzler.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA