OT: Making bigger wind-turbines 5.6MW now, 12MW soon.

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:23:15 AM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

--------------------------

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently



** All marketing hype.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit
10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.



** Way back in 1946, the Rolls Royce Limited ran a turbine engine called the Avon. By 1950 it was powering aircraft like this.

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

The engine measures under 1m in diameter and a tad over 3m long.

It weighs about 1300 kg.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/RR_Avon.jpg

Current models put out 21,000shp operating on natural gas and are used for generating electricity and gas compression.

Generator sets with the engine output 15MW, nice and steady, all day.

No wind necessary, around 30,000 hours (3.5 years) between overhauls.

Huge, ugly wind mills have some catching up to do.

Sadly, they have a unique selling feature that gas turbines can't match - they don't dump any extra CO2 into the atmosphere.

You may not believe in anthropogenic global warming, but you probably do believe in bush-fires, and burning more fossil carbon to dump even more CO2 into the atmosphere is a royal road to larger and earlier bush-fires.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:32:47 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:24:59 PM UTC-4, Martin Riddle wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:32:37 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in news:qpd7c1$nsh$1@dont-email.me:

On 10/30/2019 6:31 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-kee
p-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit
10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look
like, but thinks that it is some way off.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/15/wind-turbine-disposal/
Mikek


Why would you want to throw one away?

Old planes get sold to smaller companies.

Old turbines would get sold to smaller customers.

Economically, it's cheaper to just scrap the mill vs take it apart
piece by piece.

Lol! No one is going to do either if it still worked. They will run them until they aren't working well enough and then they will be scrapped because no one will want them. Just like we do with the millions of worn out cars each year. Why doesn't anyone get upset about that?

I remember seeing a photo of some hundreds or more likely thousands of cell phones laid out for the photo to make the point that we toss out some hundreds of millions of cell phones each year. Not really anything wrong with them. They just aren't new anymore.

So a few thousands of these windmills vs. a billion cell phones. Which is the worse ecological disaster?

Neither is any kind of ecological disaster. If some cheapskate tried to dump them where the nastier stuff inside could get out, you could create another Love Canal, which wouldn't a good thing to do, but falls well sort of an ecological disaster.

Everybody seems to feel a need to get emotional about the environment, and bleat about catastrophes and disasters. Crying wolf isn't a great strategy.

John Larkin complains that he isn't seeing the disasters he's been lead to expect - the problem with being a gullible twit is that you give equal credit to the fatuous over-sell from both sides.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick Cunthead Code Butcher wrote:

-----------------------------


> I remember seeing a photo of some hundreds or more likely thousands of cell phones laid out for the photo to make the point that we toss out some hundreds of millions of cell phones each year. Not really anything wrong with them. They just aren't new anymore.

--------------------------------------

** People who replace their smartphones often hand the old ones on - so they get used until they are broken, lost, stolen or become technically obsolete.

So a few thousands of these windmills vs. a billion cell phones.
Which is the worse ecological disaster?

** You math is being blow out your stupid arse.

Exactly like every fucking nut case, stupid post you every put here.

If 12MW wind generators were to take over from coal and gas - we would need several million of them plus massive battery banks.

All needing replacement at intervals vastly shorter than for coal and gas power stations.

Totally bonkers.


..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:51:57 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Rick Cunthead Code Butcher wrote:

-----------------------------


I remember seeing a photo of some hundreds or more likely thousands of cell phones laid out for the photo to make the point that we toss out some hundreds of millions of cell phones each year. Not really anything wrong with them. They just aren't new anymore.

--------------------------------------

** People who replace their smartphones often hand the old ones on - so they get used until they are broken, lost, stolen or become technically obsolete.


So a few thousands of these windmills vs. a billion cell phones.
Which is the worse ecological disaster?



** You math is being blow out your stupid arse.

Exactly like every fucking nut case, stupid post you every put here.

If 12MW wind generators were to take over from coal and gas - we would need several million of them plus massive battery banks.

You don't seem to haver read this morning's paper. One of the local energy suppliers - AGL has just signed up to buy four grid battery units for NSW.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/dawn-of-battery-age-agl-inks-huge-battery-deal-in-time-for-liddell-exit-20191030-p535mf.html

The clown who write the article seems to have confused the maximum power output (50MW) and the capacity (100MW.hour).

Apparently they haven't made up their minds which battery chemistry they will, use which makes the contract rather open-ended.

> All needing replacement at intervals vastly shorter than for coal and gas power stations.

What makes you think that? The rotating machinery involved is running lot colder than steam turbines.

Totally bonkers.

Probably not.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e3862b9e-117c-4316-a4aa-1d54a3a47184@googlegroups.com:

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales with the
square root of the power?

You not very bright and quite presumptive.

That means 100 MW turbines would need
to be over four times taller than a 5.6 MW turbine.

Maybe. Not likely.

I found info
on a 3.4 MW unit that is 809 feet tall (246 m). So we would be
looking at a tower that would be something approaching a mile in
height to collect 100 MW?

Use some common sense. We will not likely be building mile high
towers any time soon.

I suppose the swept area could be less
by finding more wind which I expect added height would do.

No, just more laminar wind.

So
maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would
imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.

You have no concept of what it will be either.

Maybe two 50MW gen rings and two three blade rotors back to back.

 

Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote in
newsdhkred20jojod2jf5pilrrdu6eudv0nr6@4ax.com:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:32:37 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in news:qpd7c1$nsh$1@dont-email.me:

On 10/30/2019 6:31 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-
kee
p-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should
hit
10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look
like, but thinks that it is some way off.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/15/wind-turbine-disposal/
Mikek


Why would you want to throw one away?

Old planes get sold to smaller companies.

Old turbines would get sold to smaller customers.

Economically, it's cheaper to just scrap the mill vs take it apart
piece by piece.


Cheers

I disagree. Cranes are cheap, and new production is not.
Scrapping is also not cheap.

So even though profit would be hit by the logistics of disassembly,
it would still be better than scrapping, which also requires (piece
by piece) disassembly.

 

[Phil Allison]

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

---------------------------

Let's see.


** Let's not - cos you are a bullshitting fuckwit.


Wind is free, coal is not,


** Coal is free here.

Coal is NOT free

** Fraid it is.

We dig it out the ground.


Which has a substantial cost attached to it,

** The stuff itself is free - you fucking moron.

Sunlight stored for us by God, over millions of years.

Yeah... we gonna use the sunlight direct now, thanks.

** But stored sunlight is sooo much better.

Cos it is massively CONCENTRATED !!


Unlike your good self,

which is loose and scattered about like manic chimp's diarrhoea.




..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:21:26 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:47ae924e-2b1e-45b0-86fe-cf3cc3fc2d7b@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 12:31:06 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:d07cca24-b09a-429c-a7db-d4144259ad96@googlegroups.com:

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-k
eep -getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should
hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look
like, but thinks that it is some way off.


https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/halia
de-x- offshore-turbine

That's actually a picture of a part that is going to go into a
12MW wind turbine.

Yeah, I know exactly what it is. You have a problem with making
stupid assessments about people instead of just looking at the data.

That picture is not a "part", it IS the generator. You know...
the 12MW part that gets perched on top of the tower.

And it's clearly not at top of the tower in the picture.

The story was about working wind turbines, not parts in the pipe-line to be put together into a working wind-turbine.

It's a part for one of the 12MW wind turbines that the article
said were in the pipe-line.

No. They are being produced, as in ON THE PRODUCTION LINE. That
one is a finished roll-out off the line.

A production line isn't the kind of "pipeline" being referred to - is merely a part of the figurative pipe-line that finally spits out wind-turbines tht actually generate power, as opposed to publicity photo-graphs.

You should pay closer attention.

Maybe you should. The site I posted with my pics has the GE
turbine in the set. Been that way for days, and I have had the pics
for over a year now. Several pics of it, in fact.

It's not pictured generating power from the wind blowing on the rotating blades.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:17740119-0723-4d34-
9fb0-e3fe58c2dd5d@googlegroups.com:

** The stuff itself is free - you fucking moron.

Putting a ton of coal into a generator's boiler is NOT 'free', and
again, that decidedly makes YOU the fucking moron.

Around here, it runs at about $40 a ton at the power plant dock
door.
About 15% of that is transportation cost alone.

The stuff itself is not free and neither is oil. If it were, we
could all have free gasoline and power. We do not.

Erect turbine, single cost. After that , no cost, free power.
Maintainence costs are less as well. Power plants are not cheap to
operate.

So the wattage being produced on the windmills, is likely more
efficient, even though it is substantially less than a slab mounted,
multi-ton, coal fired turbine drive chain. That simply means we
erect more than one till we get what we need.

Lighten up, chump. We all move toward the same goal.

There is an entire town in PA burning below ground. If coal was so
great, then why do they not have a big power plant mounted over the
town, reaping the burning coal energy?

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:06a0fc81-fa4a-4528-ad3d-b88050e6fb5e@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:46:41 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill
wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

Wind speed would impact the available power for the rating.
Constancy would not impact the power rating even if it does impact
the aggregate power in a year.

Wow, man. this goup of dufuses really needed you to boil down that
100% common sense basic math problem you solved for us.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:22:31 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Let's see.

** Let's not - cos you are a bullshitting fuckwit.


Wind is free, coal is not,


** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

The fossil carbon extraction industry makes a lot of money out of digging up coal and getting us to pay for it.

They spend some of it persuading Australia's more right-wing politicians to wave lumps of coal around in parliament, and tell people that it's the far-right way to generate power.

We dig it out the ground.

Sunlight stored for us by God, over millions of years.

He's not storing it anything like as fast as we are digging it up, and he may have had other things in mind when he (or she) buried it, like not letting the planet warm up too much.

You faith in your own capacity to work out what god had in mind is touching, but - like most of the people who claim that skill - you've probably got it wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:3f0a2720-0adf-4af8-acdb-a90e555f4ed9@googlegroups.com:

And it's clearly not at top of the tower in the picture.

The story was about working wind turbines, not parts in the
pipe-line to be put together into a working wind-turbine.

I do not give a fat flying fuck about some story.

I was talking about what IS already in production.

I did not need to post ANY pic of ANY completed unit to make my
point.

Sheesh.

You 'clearly' are overthinking it.

Yes, they ALREADY EXIST.

Yes, that was an example of one without the blades and not yet
installed. That still does NOT negate the FACT that it is what I
said it is, and got the point across. Whether it made it across to
you is now questionable.

Try reading it again. ALL I SAID was that they already exist.

And then you put me back on your pissy parting commentary list.

You are like the juvenile jackasses that walk by and spit to make
their retarded little racist jackass comment. I did not think much
of them either. And you were doing so well. And I was even
defending you. Does everyone get senile like Doanld J. Trump around
here? You certainly are showing some signs.

Add some selenium to your diet.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:46:41 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

Wind speed would impact the available power for the rating. Constancy would not impact the power rating even if it does impact the aggregate power in a year.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:3f0a2720-0adf-4af8-acdb-a90e555f4ed9@googlegroups.com:

It's not pictured generating power from the wind blowing on the
rotating blades.

Again, it did not need to be.

Are you trying to deny that there are units in service already?

 

[boB]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

The answer is blowin' in the wind

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:
------------------------

** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

** Bill - hello - thatain't one tiny bit relevant.

The fossil carbon extraction industry makes a lot of money out
of digging up coal and getting us to pay for it.

** All goes in various salerieire for the worker involved.

We dig it out the ground.

Sunlight stored for us by God, over millions of years.

He's not storing it anything like as fast as we are digging it up,

** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.

You faith in your own capacity to work out what god had in mind is touching,

** Only Green lunatics think we should have left leave any of the incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Describes you to a T.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

boB wrote:

-----------

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would
look like, but thinks that it is some way off.


The answer is blowin' in the wind

** Oh dear - that is very witty.



...... Phil

 

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

These are far too small, the blades spend most if not all in the
turbulent zone, thus the wind speed varies during blade travel and the
wind could even flow in opposite directions at different highs. This
will also create uneven torque on the blades during the blade travel.

The hub highs should be at about 600 m, with about current size
blades. Thus, the blades would remain all times above turbulent air
flow in constant wind speed range.

>The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

 

[Phil Allison]

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

----------------------------------

** " Never give up = never lose".

The fuckwit troll's motto.

** The stuff itself is free - you fucking moron.


Putting a ton of coal into a generator's boiler is NOT 'free',

** See above you illiterate fucking nut case.

The stuff itself is not free and neither is oil.

** Crude oil is there in the ground for the taking.

( Rest of your putrid Green insanity snipped.)

The Commie bastards have certainly brainwashed you - pal.

Was obviously not a big job.



...... Phil