Wind Turbines

We are the Borg.
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

The rarely spinning turbines of the Strata Tower, south London

Image
When the tower was proposed, the developers claimed that the three turbines would generate 8% of the tower’s electricity needs, but seeing as the things don’t appear to have moved for months, we suspect that figure is closer to 0% most days. It seems that the posh folks living in the upper floor penthouses objected to the noise and vibration of the spinning blades.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73832
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Doctor X »

sparks wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:06 pmNo. Not touching this one.

Doc?
I am not sure Gram's Mom would touch it.

[Your Mom?--Ed.]

Even she has standards . . . apparently.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 17133
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by sparks »

I dunno. She might if you fed her enough Vodka.





Wait...
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

New York passes its Green New Deal, announces massive offshore wind push

Yesterday, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that's been described as the state's Green New Deal. Unlike the one that's been floated in Congress, this one isn't a grab-bag collection of social and energy programs. Instead, there's a strong focus on energy, with assurances that changes will be made in a way that benefits underprivileged communities.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New York legislature last month, but Cuomo held off on signing it so he could pair it with an announcement that suggests the new plan's goals are realistic. The state has now signed contracts for two wind farms that will have a combined capacity of 1.7 GW. If they open as planned in under five years, they will turn New York into the US's leading producer of offshore wind power.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07 ... wind-push/ for details.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

Wind power has surpassed coal for the first time in Texas, according to a new report.

The numbers cap an enormous rise in wind power in the nation's top energy-producing state over the past decades.
Wind has generated 22% of the state's electrical needs this year. It just edged out coal, which provided 21% of the Lone Star State's power, according to the Electrical Reliability Council of Texas, which manages electrical flow on about 90% of the Texan grid.

Sixteen years ago, in 2003, wind made up just 0.8% of the state's power, and coal satisfied 40% of electrical needs, the council documents show.
By 2010, wind accounted for 8% of the state's energy, and it steadily inched forward to 19% last year and now 22% in the first half of 2019.
At the same time, coal's portion of the energy mix has declined over the past several years, from 37% in 2013 to 24% last year and just 21% this year.
Yet while wind has soared and coal-generated power has cooled, natural gas still accounts for the largest share of the state's energy mix, generating 46% of its power in 2003 and staying strong at 44% last year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/t ... index.html
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Giant Turbines Propel Boom in Wind Energy

Technological advances mean the wind industry may only see a small slowdown when tax credits end

The wind industry is growing, literally. American wind developers are installing increasingly large turbines, capable of generating twice as much power as their predecessors and opening up new areas of the country to wind development.

The trend arrives at a critical time for the industry. The production tax credit, a federal subsidy, is set to end at the end of the year. But unlike in previous years, when wind development ground to a halt when subsidies dried up, industry representatives are predicting only a modest slowdown.

“We are confident we will remain one of the most competitive forms of energy,” said John Hensley, vice president of research and analytics at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a trade group.

Among the reasons for the sunny outlook: improved turbine technology. Today, only six land-based projects with a combined capacity of 767 megawatts employ turbines with a generating capacity of 3.5 MW or higher. The majority of today’s turbines have a capacity between 2 and 3 MW.

Turbines with a capacity of 3.4 to 3.6 MW accounted for 14% of all installations in the second quarter. And orders for larger turbines are starting to add up, according to AWEA’s most recent market update. Some 22 projects boasting a combined capacity of 3,907 MW reported buying turbines with a listed capacity of 3.5 MW or greater in the second quarter of the year, a 35% increase over the first three months of 2019.

Developers in the United States only first started ordering 4 MW machines in the third quarter of 2018. Orders for those turbines increased to 2,190 MW in the second quarter, AWEA reported.

The advantages of larger turbines are several. Larger turbines mean fewer towers are needed to generate the same amount of electricity, decreasing projects’ costs and the size of their footprint. That opens areas of the country like the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic and West Coast, where open land is at a premium, to wind energy, Hensley said.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nd-energy/
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas

In the US, it's cheaper to build and operate wind farms than buy fossil fuels.

This week, the US Department of Energy released a report that looks back on the state of wind power in the US by running the numbers on 2018. The analysis shows that wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing the typical power generated by each turbine. As a result, recent wind farms have gotten so cheap that you can build and operate them for less than the expected cost of buying fuel for an equivalent natural gas plant.

Wind is even cheaper at the moment because of a tax credit given to renewable energy generation. But that credit is in the process of fading out, leading to long term uncertainty in a power market where demand is generally stable or dropping.

2018 saw about 7.6 GigaWatts of new wind capacity added to the grid, accounting for just over 20 percent of the US' capacity additions. This puts it in third place behind natural gas and solar power. That's less impressive than it might sound, however, given that things like coal and nuclear are essentially at a standstill. Because the best winds aren't evenly distributed in the US, there are areas, like parts of the Great Plains, where wind installations were more than half of the new power capacity installed.

Overall, that brings the US' installed capacity up to nearly 100GW. That leaves only China ahead of the US, although the gap is substantial with China having more than double the US' installed capacity. It still leaves wind supplying only 6.5 percent of the US' total electricity in 2018, though, which places it behind a dozen other countries. Four of them—Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Portugal—get over 20 percent of their total electric needs supplied by wind, with Denmark at over 40 percent.

That figure is notable, as having over 30 percent of your power supplied by an intermittent source is a challenge for many existing grids. But there are a number of states that have now cleared the 30 percent threshold: Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, with the two Dakotas not far behind. The Southwest Power Pool, which serves two of those states plus wind giant Texas, is currently getting a quarter of its electricity from wind. (Texas leads the US with 25GW of installed wind capacity.)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08 ... tural-gas/
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 13293
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

ed wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:13 am Not a mention of impact on wildlife or what impact low frequency thrumming might have on humans.
Killing millions of birds and bats is a small price to pay for saving the world.
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Bananas?-Yes
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:42 am

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Bananas?-Yes »

I assume that vocabulary "thrumming" is something to do with vibrations and that is an area where a lot of folks don't pay a whole heck of heed to. In choppers we are always paying attention to whether it is a high or low frequency vibration, because high frequency means get on the ground immediately. And I mean that 'immediately' as in no matter who owns the ground below. In fact, immediately is not soon enough.

But I seem to remember in the O'Club that a flight surgeon once went on and on about how they knew so little about the possible problems with low frequency vibrations. That was over thirty years ago, so I suspect they have more information now. I hope they do.

And that business of natural flight creatures giving up their lives for us nonflying animals seems a tough one to make conclusions about. It ain't no small price for the flying creature who has that midair collision.
+ + + Bananas are group oriented. + + +
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40523
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ed »

Remember the VLA(that was a radio telescope thingie I mean VLF? It have off low frequencies to help track subs (do I have that right?). Problem was that it fucked up the navigation of porpoises and whales. Then again, sea mammals are so yesterday ...


eta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communica ... submarines

Here we go:
If you were a blue whale, the water in most of the world’s oceans would be so murky that you wouldn’t be able to see your own flukes. Which is why most marine species use sound to navigate, feed, find mates, and communica—BLUURRRRGGGGHHHH AAAARRROOOOOO WAA WAA WAA—oh, sorry, pardon the interruption.

That’s just the noise of whales cheering. See, they just won a major noise pollution battle against the US Navy. For over a decade, the Navy has been trying to convince the courts that they can use an ultra-loud sonar array in a way that is safe for marine life. But on July 15, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said that no, actually it’s not safe at all.

The Epic Fight to Protect Whales From the U.S. Navy
The ruling came down to a Navy-friendly interpretation of the National Marine Protection Act, which prohibits any US citizen, agency, or organization from harming creatures like whales, dolphins, and seals. That ruling was made by NOAA’s Fisheries Service, putting them in cahoots with the Navy. However, NRDC and several co-defendants took NOAA Fisheries to court, and eventually won the case. As a result, the Navy will be barred from using its deep submarine hunting sonar in much of the world’s oceans during peacetime.

Sonar Subwoofers
The US hasn’t faced any real naval threat in decades. During the 1970s, however, the Soviet Union was developing quieter submarines. At the same time, the ocean itself was getting noisier from activities like oil drilling and marine shipping. The US Navy wasn’t just worried about a sneak attack from the deep: Submarines that creep close to an enemy’s ships or shore are capable of all sorts of clandestine shenanigans, like eavesdropping on short range communications.

So the Navy started working on a special long-range sonar tool. They called it Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active, or SURTASS/LFA. One quick aside: That is a monstrous acronym with three S’s, none of which stands for sonar! But sonar it is. The system deploys from the aft ends of special sub-hunting surface ships. Once lowered from the massive reel, the system’s 18 source projectors—basically huge, aquatic subwoofers—emit loud, low-frequency tones.
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/sea-will- ... ing-sonar/
This space for let
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Wyoming wind farm making same power with 80% fewer turbines

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Bigger, more efficient equipment will allow an electric utility to redevelop Wyoming's first commercial wind farm so it produces the same amount of power with far fewer turbines, an example of the growing feasibility of renewable energy in the top U.S. coal-mining state.

Portland, Oregon-based PacifiCorp plans to replace 68 wind turbines at the Foote Creek I wind farm with 13 turbines. The wind farm atop the barren and blustery ridge called Foote Creek Rim west of Cheyenne will continue to generate about 41 megawatts, or enough electricity to power nearly 20,000 homes.

[…]

Increasingly efficient renewables and inexpensive gas-fired electricity are bad news for Wyoming's coal mining industry, which employs about 4,700 miners and supplies over 40 percent of U.S. coal. Several bankruptcies, including one that shut down two of the top-producing U.S. coal mines in the state's northeastern Powder River Basin area of rolling grasslands, have hit the industry in recent years.

At Foote Creek Rim, PacifiCorp plans to replace its 600-kilowatt Mitsubishi wind turbines with 2- and 4-megawatt Vestas turbines. The Vestas turbines will have larger blades spanning 120 yards (110 meters) and 149 yards (136 meters).

As the new turbines go up, the existing ones will be decommissioned next April.
https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/wyom ... g%20state.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Climate change: Offshore wind expands at record low price

Friday's announcement offers a guaranteed price to firms willing to take the risk of installing costly offshore wind turbines in projects set to be delivered by 2025.

The cheapest operator will provide power for as low as £40 per megawatt hour.

By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C - the new nuclear power station in Somerset also due to open in 2025 - is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Today's news makes arguing for the massive public subsidies nuclear power requires a much harder task."

The government anticipates the overall wholesale electricity price will range between £48.95 in 2023-24 to £52.36 per megawatt hour in 2026-27.

The cost of offshore wind has plummeted about 30% in the last two years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49769259
User avatar
Surprise
Posts: 2380
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:33 am
Title: Nostradamus

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Surprise »

robinson wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:47 am
ed wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:13 am Not a mention of impact on wildlife or what impact low frequency thrumming might have on humans.
Killing millions of birds and bats is a small price to pay for saving the world.
Climate change and habitat destruction are causing far more damange.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29250
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

Supposedly a lot of birds get killed simply from glass windows.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 25677
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by gnome »

As much as I find heartening the remarkable appreciation that oil and coal industry leaders have discovered for the plight of animals, it is true that any impact description should really be comparative--I don't think the math works even if you discount the potential of climate change to harm wildlife.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies

The government aid renewable energy developers once relied on is fading away

For years, wind and solar power were derided as boondoggles. They were too expensive, the argument went, to build without government handouts.

Today, renewable energy is so cheap that the handouts they once needed are disappearing.

On sun-drenched fields across Spain and Italy, developers are building solar farms without subsidies or tax-breaks, betting they can profit without them. In China, the government plans to stop financially supporting new wind farms. And in the U.S., developers are signing shorter sales contracts, opting to depend on competitive markets for revenue once the agreements expire.

[…]

The reason, in short, is the subsidies worked. After decades of quotas, tax breaks and feed-in-tariffs, wind and solar have been deployed widely enough for manufacturers and developers to become increasingly efficient and drive down costs. The cost of wind power has fallen about 50% since 2010. Solar has dropped 85%. That makes them cheaper than new coal and gas plants in two-thirds of the world, according to BloombergNEF.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -subsidies
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 25677
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by gnome »

But Soylandra, amirite? We should never even have tried.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

UK Renewables Outperform Gas For First Quarter Ever

New figures from the UK Government published just before Christmas showed that renewable energy generation across the country generated a record quarterly amount of electricity between July and September, outperforming natural gas for the first time ever.

The UK Government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published its latest “Energy Trends” report just before Christmas which showed that in the third quarter of 2019 renewable energy sources provided a record 38.9% of the country’s electricity — exceeding natural gas for the first time ever, which provided 38.8%.

This new quarterly record for renewable energy generation beat out the previous quarterly record of 36.8% set in the fourth quarter of 2018, highlighting the potential for a new record to be set again as we come to the end of the fourth quarter of 2019. This is particularly important as the report highlighted that the third quarter’s new record was caused by a combination of favorable weather conditions and increased renewable energy generation sources, with combined renewable electricity capacity increasing to 46.9 GW at the end of the third quarter — a 7.2% year-over-year increase.

This was unsurprisingly led by offshore wind — given the country’s current dominance in offshore wind deployment — which for the first time ever exceeded onshore wind generation.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/27/uk ... rter-ever/
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

They include in the category 'renewable' the huge, previously coal-fired, power stations such as Drax, which have now been converted to mostly burn wood pellets, The pellets are made from trees felled in North America, and then transported about a quarter of the way around the world to be burned.

These biomass power stations create more CO2 per unit of electricity burned than the coal-fired ones do. They're not really renewable either: even when one ignores all the fossil fuel burned producing and transporting the pellets (which the politicians do, of course), the biomass itself is only neutral once the saplings they plant grow to the same size as the trees that were cut down - and that will likely be after the forthcoming climate disaster, according to climate scientists.

Article about Biomass industry greenwashing
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

Abdul Alhazred wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:56 pm We've been over this before.
Yes, but this time I concentrated on Drax instead of the much smaller Lynemouth. Drax is the largest power station in the UK - nearly 4 GW. At the moment, 2.6GW is biomass, and 1.3 GW coal. The government has imposed a deadline of 2025 after which, no UK power station will be allowed to burn coal. Drax expects to comfortably beat that deadline, and by switching over entirely to "renewable" fuel will soon be emitting more Carbon Dioxide than ever before, while still meeting (and getting government grants for meeting) renewable energy targets.
User avatar
gnome
Posts: 25677
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by gnome »

More than they would using coal at the same output level, or exceeding it because of higher output?

Another question I have is if the CO2 levels are comparable to the alternative, are there other environmental benefits to the switch?

I consider, for example, how coal creates heavy metal pollution.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

A massive wind turbine in New York City crashes down onto a car

(CNN)A recently installed wind turbine came crashing down in a New York City neighborhood, causing a chain reaction on Monday.
As the turbine in the Bronx partially collapsed, it smashed into an adjacent three-sided illuminated billboard, causing that also to break apart and come tumbling down to the street and cars below.
Pictures from the scene shot by Tori McCauseland with The Co-op City Times show a massive pole lying across a mangled car.

"Thankfully we can report that there are no injuries, and everyone is safe and sound," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told CNN affiliate WABC. "An investigation into how this incident happened is underway."
The wind turbine, which is more than 150 feet tall, was installed in mid-December but had not yet been activated, according to WABC. Debris was strewn across the shopping center below that houses a gas station, pharmacy, paint store and other businesses. All the stores were evacuated, according to the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB).
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/30/us/w ... index.html

I blame AOC.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23527
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

gnome wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2020 12:55 am More than they would using coal at the same output level, or exceeding it because of higher output?
Coal has a higher energy density than pellets but pellets can be burned more efficiently than coal. On average:

Energy content of coal: 24 MJ/kg @ 60%eff = 14.4 MJ/kg realized.
Energy content of pellets: 18 MJ/kg @ 80%eff = 14.4 MJ/kg realized.

So it's a wash.
Another question I have is if the CO2 levels are comparable to the alternative, are there other environmental benefits to the switch?

I consider, for example, how coal creates heavy metal pollution.
Coal is a nasty fuel. In modern plants, all those nasty heavy metals are scrubbed and stored as fly-ash. So while very little makes it to the air, it still has to be dealt with.

But that's where the benefit of wood pellets ends. It's hard to find an unbiased source that compares pellet CO2 emissions with other fuels because most of them only report 'surplus' or Life cycle CO2 rather than actual CO2.

I think volker-quaschning gives an unbiased picture.
Image.
https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datser ... ndex_e.php

But because the EU only considers life cycle, burning pellets gives those plants a free pass.

But not Too Free.

The cost comparison is an eye opener.

price of coal: $35.99/ton
price of pellets: $250/ton

In the end, pellets are no panacea.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-wood-pell ... utral.html
https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insi ... green-fuel
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

When you compare the price per ton of pellets versus coal, you also have to consider energy density - you have to burn a greater weight of pellets than coal to produce the same amount of heat, so the pellet price is even higher than it first appears.

The actual density (weight per unit volume) of pellets is also much lower than that of coal, so you need more ships and rail cars to carry the fuel required. This was apparent when I worked at Lynemouth - the rail depot that used to handle the coal easily was stretched to breaking point and in need of expansion after the plant was converted to biomass. They also had to build extra silos to stockpile enough fuel to last between one shipment and the next - they like to stockpile at least a week's worth of fuel in case of supply problems, and a week's worth of pellets takes up a lot more room than a week's worth of coal.

There's also the energy input for producing the wood pellets to consider. The trees have to be felled, transported, cut up, and the pellets are then dried, compacted, etc. ready for transport. Much of the energy input to these processes comes from burning fossil fuels or from the electricity grid, but some estimates put the energy use of these processes equivalent to burning 10% to 20% of the wood in order to process the remaining 80% to 90%.

Of course, coal also has to be mined, broken up, washed and transported, but the energy inputs for those processes are generally much lower than for wood pellets. In the case of the UK, the power stations were often built directly over coal fields to minimize the transport costs, but now those same power stations are burning imported wood pellets, the cost of transport, both in energy and financial terms, is much greater.

The wood pellets also have health risks. The dust from the wood pellets is a known carcinogen, and special dust extractors, filters, and personal protective equipment are required at all stages of the transport and handling process.

The furnaces that raise the steam at Drax were designed for coal. Apparently the fumes caused by burning pellets contain extra acids or other chemicals that attack the steam tubes shortening their expected lifespan. One of the projects I was involved with at Drax, was to feed some sort of mineral powder additive into the furnaces that helped correct this problem. Of course, extra silos, monitoring and metering equipment was needed to store and feed the powder (I worked on the weighing equipment that measured and controlled the feed rate of the powder). The weight and volume of the powder was a tiny fraction compared to the pellets, but that powder still had to be bought, transported, stored, and monitored. I was never able to find out the actual composition of the powder - there seemed to be great secrecy concerning what it was. I don't know if that was for commercial or other reasons.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Kansas’ embrace of wind energy helps it reduce CO2 emissions

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas has been able to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions for a 10th straight year largely due to the rapid adoption of wind energy and a slow move away from coal powered electricity.

About 36% of all electricity produced in Kansas is from wind, the highest percentage of any U.S. state, the Kansas News Service reported. In 2019 alone, Kansas saw four new wind farms, adding enough capacity to power 190,000 homes for a year.

In 2017, about half of Kansas’ total carbon-dioxide emissions came from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, to create electricity. Plant upgrades and federal environmental regulations since, have forced coal plants to clean up what was coming out of their smoke stacks.
https://apnews.com/037f82df7e0d6bcde590170a59d46528
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Image
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Germany eyes new offshore wind farms dedicated to green hydrogen production

Move would be a world first in fast-moving sector — part of government plans to spend billions of euros to build up an industrial-scale domestic market for green H2

Germany is considering holding special offshore wind tenders to produce green hydrogen at an industrial scale, according to the draft of a national hydrogen strategy by the economics and energy ministry seen by Recharge.

Awarding areas at sea exclusively for hydrogen production is one out of 34 measures the ministry suggests in a 21-page draft document that will now undergo the scrutiny of other ministries before being presented by economics and energy minister Peter Altmaier.

“The designation of areas that can be used for the off-shore production of hydrogen, the necessary infrastructure and options for additional tenders for the generation of renewable energies will be relevant topics (implementation from 2020),” the draft stresses without giving more specific detail on when special tenders may be held or what volume they could have.

“Due to the high full load hours, wind energy at sea is an attractive technology for generating renewable electricity, which can be used for the production of CO2-free hydrogen,” it explains.

The proposal for a hydrogen strategy includes the need for billions of euros in support, and stresses that Germany will need to build up a strong domestic market for green hydrogen in order to become a world leader in hydrogen technology.

But it acknowledges that given the country’s limited own renewable energy generation capacities, it will also need to import large quantities of CO2-free hydrogen.

“The European Union, in particular with the North Sea, has geographically suitable and profitable locations for wind energy and thus offers great potential for the production of green hydrogen,” the proposal states, but also says that part of the hydrogen supply could come from non-EU nations, where renewables can be produced at very cheap prices on a large scale.
https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/germa ... 2-1-748198
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Not only wind, but still a data point:
EU's CO2 emissions fall 12% in 2019 as wind and solar surpass coal

February 5 (Renewables Now) - The European Union’s (EU) electricity sector has emitted 12% less carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2019 compared to a year earlier as generation from hard coal- and lignite-fired power plants dropped by 24% on the year.

Greenhouse gas emissions went down by 120 million tonnes, which is the sharpest decline since at least 1990, shows a new study by Agora Energiewende and climate think-tank Sandbag.

“Last year’s decline in EU greenhouse gas emissions is thanks largely to the CO2 emissions price, which continued to drive climate-damaging energy sources from the market,” said Matthias Buck, the head of European energy policy at Agora Energiewende. He noted, though, that maintaining the price of CO2 emissions at current levels is crucial for ensuring the continued mitigation of global warming. In 2019, that price rose to about EUR 25 (USD 27.5) per tonne of CO2.

Buck also urged the EU Emissions Trading System to further lower the number of yearly permits it issues for greenhouse gas emissions in the energy, industrial and intra-European aviation sectors.

Last year saw the share of renewables in EU-wide power generation climb to a record high of 34.6%, or 1.8 percentage points higher than in 2018. The electricity produced by wind and solar parks rose by 64 TWh to 569 TWh in 2019 and thus, for the first time, surpassed the amount of coal-fired electricity by 100 TWh. Wind farms generated 14% more electricity in 2019 compared to 2018, while solar power plants experienced a 7% increase in their output. On the other hand, hydropower production went down by more than 6% because of ongoing drought.

When it comes to annual capacity additions, the study mentions that 16.8 GW of wind parks were installed across Europe in 2019, which is about 5.1 GW more than the year before. In the solar photovoltaic (PV) sector, annual additions doubled to 16.7 GW from 8.2 GW.

Buck, however, warns that the annual growth of renewable energy capacity should be accelerated if the EU is to achieve its 2030 target of having almost one-third of its total energy coming from renewables.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/eus-co2- ... al-686170/
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Britain sets new daily record for wind generation, topping 44% of country’s electricity consumption

Stormy conditions drove wind to a new record-high share of Britain’s electricity supply that at one point hit 56% this weekend, said power market analysts.

The record level, in the early hours of Saturday 8 February, beat a previous high of 52.4% set in September 2019, said analysis from Drax Electric Insights.

Saturday also set a new record for highest share of power produced in a single day with 44.26%, said Drax, outstripping both nuclear and gas combined.

The wind power records came amid the arrival of storm Ciara, which caused havoc to travel and infrastructure across the UK this weekend – and left thousands of consumers without any power at all.

The UK has 13.57GW of onshore wind installed, and a world-leading 8.4GW offshore fleet.

The two are currently on very different trajectories, with onshore installations plunging as a result of adverse government policies, while offshore is booming after being included as a key part of the national industrial strategy.
https://ieefa.org/britain-sets-new-dail ... nsumption/
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29250
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

Abdul Alhazred wrote: Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:56 pm We've been over this before.
Abdul Alhazred wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:16 pm
ceptimus wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:03 am I worked on the conversion of Lynemouth power station from burning coal into burning wood pellets. The wood pellets are officially classified as green, so the station now runs flat out 24/7 supplying base load, even at times of low demand when wind turbines are parked because their energy is not needed.

The tragedy is that the wood pellets are imported from North America's west coast. The carbon burned harvesting, processing, and transporting the fuel isn't taken into account when calculating the carbon footprint. Also there are big questions about the sustainability of cutting down mature trees and burning them to make electricity - no matter where in the world, and under what regulatory system those trees are felled.

The Czech company that owns and operates the power station doesn't care - targets are officially being met and the company is able to claim a £1m per day government subsidy for producing all that lovely "clean" energy.
Quincy Illinois until recently had a power plant that generated electricity by burning old tires. Finally local protests got it shut down.

You might think that even by greedy capitalist pig despoil the planet standards, it would be unprofitable to generate electricity that way.

However, they got a state subsidy because old tires were classified as "renewable". Remove the subsidy, close the plant.

There was probably some hanky-panky involved in getting the subsidy in the first place, but nobody pursued that.
If you just buried the tires, the carbon in them would be sequestered (as long as you don't accidentally cause a tire fire).
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

That would only work for preventing the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide if the fossil fuel burned by all the equipment and people that bury the tires contains less carbon than that contained in the actual tires.

I guess that would be the case providing you use an existing hole: stack the tires in worked-out existing mines. Make sure you don't burn much fossil fuel transporting and handling the tires though.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29250
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

Well, I'm assuming they need to be disposed of in any case. Disposing of garbage/trash is a necessity anyway, right?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

Yes.

Tires are tricky things to recycle as they contain rubber, plastic, steel, and fibres all baked together. If they can't be recycled as tires, what are the options? Grind them up, bury them, stack them in huge piles on the surface, or burn them? All those approaches have drawbacks in energy use and pollution.

The French used to throw them in the ocean, claiming they would create useful habitats for fish and other marine life - but years later they had to admit that the tires were badly damaging the ocean, so they had to recover as many tires as possible back to land.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180923/france ... ental-flop
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29250
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

I suppose that burning them isn't necessarily the worst option. If you get energy from it. But it's like burning a fossil fuel.

The French determined that throwing them in the ocean isn't a good idea.

If you could recycle them or reuse them somehow, that might be good, but I don't know how economic that really is.

If none of the above that leaves either burying them or making a mountain of discarded tires somewhere. Tire mountains often end up burning so that too seems bad:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_fire
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 20640
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Bruce of all Bruces
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Bruce »

We could melt them down and turn them into bullets.

Oh wait, I thought this thread was about wind turbines. We're talking about tires now? I suppose we could still turn them into rubber bullets, but that wouldn't be as effective in reducing the Vegan population.
Such potential!
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23527
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

ceptimus wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:33 am Yes.

Tires are tricky things to recycle as they contain rubber, plastic, steel, and fibres all baked together. If they can't be recycled as tires, what are the options? Grind them up, bury them, stack them in huge piles on the surface, or burn them? All those approaches have drawbacks in energy use and pollution.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180923/france ... ental-flop
I'll try to find the youtube video but it just so happens there's a new road construction process that uses whole tires with the sidewalls cut out as the foundation for roads highways. Here's how it works
1) cut surface the road, as usual.
2) instead of just spreading gravel as evenly for the foundation, first put down the tires, side by side, and fill them and the remaining spaces with number 8 gravel.
3) Pave over it with asphalt or concrete.

The constraint of the tire column eliminates compression and spreading. The loose aggregate elements freeze/thaw heaving.

Zero potholes for decades.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Britain's power system is decarbonising faster than anywhere in the world, report finds

Image

Britain's power system has been decarbonising at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world over the last decade, a new report has found.

Carbon emissions from the power sector have fallen by around two thirds over the last ten years, from 161 million tonnes in 2010 to 54 million metric tonnes in 2019.

It comes as the country's generators transition away from coal and natural gas to renewable energy sources, such as sustainable biomass.

In the electricity sector, a decrease in demand for power proved to be the biggest driver of the decline in emissions, according to the report by academics from Imperial College London for Drax Electric Insights.

Demand fell by 13 per cent, even as the population grew by seven per cent and GDP rose by a quarter, as measures such as more energy efficient lighting, manufacturing and other efficiency measures took hold.

However the rise of electric vehicles and household heat pumps threaten to reverse this trend, the report warned.

...

The report found that sustainable biomass generated more power than solar energy and provided a bigger reduction in wholesale power prices.

Over the last decade, biomass produced 88.1 TWh compared to 59.86 TWh from solar - despite the latter having a far greater installed capacity, the report found.

Meanwhile, wind energy delivered a quarter of the reduction in carbon emissions.

But as reliance on weather-dependent energy sources grew, the report warned that 'system operability' would become more difficult and called for more system support services and greater flexibility.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/uk ... r-BB1048hw

ceptimus will perhaps chime in about the "sustainable" biomass.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29250
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Anaxagoras »

Witness wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:35 am
The report found that sustainable biomass generated more power than solar energy and provided a bigger reduction in wholesale power prices.
. . .

But as reliance on weather-dependent energy sources grew, the report warned that 'system operability' would become more difficult and called for more system support services and greater flexibility.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/uk ... r-BB1048hw

ceptimus will perhaps chime in about the "sustainable" biomass.
Well I think he already did, but it's actually a fair question in my opinion. If it's being felled and transported from North America, is it truly "zero emissions"? Or close enough to zero to squint and call it zero? I would like to see exactly how this is justified, because it sort of smells like a kind of accounting trick. :notsure:

In truth, it does in fact emit CO2 in the burning of course, but we pretend that this CO2 doesn't count because it came from the atmosphere in the first place. Sure, OK, but instead of being bound up and trapped in the wood, we are putting it back into the atmosphere as CO2.

And of course, cutting down trees requires some kind of machinery that runs on fossil fuel. So does transporting the logs with trucks and probably the cutting into pellets too. Then it needs to be transported to a port and loaded into a ship that burns heavy fuel oil to be shipped across the ocean. And finally transporting from the port to the power generator. What does that all add up to?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

There are other sources of "bio" fuel than the wood pellets shipped to Drax: biogas from waste sludge, methane from cow manure, wood chips from local forests, or biomass from fast growing plants.

But I don't know much on the subject, and even less about what's going on in the UK.