OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well now you know
US Taxpayers sudsidized Chinese Company.
- Thread starter HTSS_TR
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Well now you know
Yes, now I know.
But I didn't say the turbine's efficiency of 2/3 as fact, I said "Assume the efficiency of the turbines are 2/3", assume means I didn't know the actual percentage.
Well now you know
Yes, now I know.
But I didn't say the turbine's efficiency of 2/3 as fact, I said "Assume the efficiency of the turbines are 2/3", assume means I didn't know the actual percentage.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oh, I know, but for the sake of sharing information, I figured I'd mention it.
I agree. I learned something today too.
I thought that wind turbine efficiency was more than 70-80%, based on many wind farms all over the world.
I thought that wind turbine efficiency was more than 70-80%, based on many wind farms all over the world.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, you'd think they were massively more efficient given their popularity. I believe nukes are the most efficient, most running in the high 90's percentage-wise. Darlington averages 98% here.
I shared an article some time back that covered the efficiencies of the various modes and nukes topped the list, wind was near the bottom, and solar was at the bottom IIRC.
I shared an article some time back that covered the efficiencies of the various modes and nukes topped the list, wind was near the bottom, and solar was at the bottom IIRC.
The maximum efficiency of any wind turbine was calculated in 1919 by Albert Betz of Germany. According to "Betz’s Law", no turbine can capture more than 16/27ths or 59.3 percent of the wind energy passing through the turbine disk.
59.3% is the best you can hope for. In practical terms the best commercial wind turbines reach 75-80 percent of the Betz limit or no more than 48 percent total efficiency.
59.3% is the best you can hope for. In practical terms the best commercial wind turbines reach 75-80 percent of the Betz limit or no more than 48 percent total efficiency.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
The maximum efficiency of any wind turbine was calculated in 1919 by Albert Betz of Germany. According to "Betz’s Law", no turbine can capture more than 16/27ths or 59.3 percent of the wind energy passing through the turbine disk.
59.3% is the best you can hope for. In practical terms the best commercial wind turbines reach 75-80 percent of the Betz limit or no more than 48 percent total efficiency.
Great contribution
Efficiency cited for the sake of calculating base-load factors in the periods of time that the turbine won't be spinning, which is why it is even lower at around 30%.
The maximum efficiency of any wind turbine was calculated in 1919 by Albert Betz of Germany. According to "Betz’s Law", no turbine can capture more than 16/27ths or 59.3 percent of the wind energy passing through the turbine disk.
59.3% is the best you can hope for. In practical terms the best commercial wind turbines reach 75-80 percent of the Betz limit or no more than 48 percent total efficiency.
Great contribution
Efficiency cited for the sake of calculating base-load factors in the periods of time that the turbine won't be spinning, which is why it is even lower at around 30%.
Yep. The saving grace is that the input is free. The big problem is that the industry is dominated by a handful of big players requiring intensive capital investments and so a justification for government subsidies.
Smaller turbines in high quantities would probably be cheaper but good luck competing against GE and friends.
Smaller turbines in high quantities would probably be cheaper but good luck competing against GE and friends.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Indeed. I think the point of contention is that, when considering the overall efficiency of 30% relative to the lifetime of the turbine, even though the input itself is "free", does the relatively poor overall output relative to that efficiency (calculated at just under 1MW for a 2.5MW unit) yield a net positive when considering the manufacture, fabrication, construction, transport, installation, wiring and periodic "bump" from the grid to start a stationary unit if necessary?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Indeed. I think the point of contention is that, when considering the overall efficiency of 30% relative to the lifetime of the turbine, even though the input itself is "free", does the relatively poor overall output relative to that efficiency (calculated at just under 1MW for a 2.5MW unit) yield a net positive when considering the manufacture, fabrication, construction, transport, installation, wiring and periodic "bump" from the grid to start a stationary unit if necessary?
Well there's lots of people in windy places that use wind power exclusively with no grid connection, so in certain conditions it makes economic sense.
How about we add on the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima to the cost of nuclear energy? $750B and $150B, respectively. Sure it doesn't show up on our power bills, but nuclear as a power source has that level of risk associated with it. Then there is the waste, the cost of storing it safely is not small, and then there is the potential for a spill or leak for many times the length of recorded human history...
Atleast with wind and solar we pay nearly all the costs upfront with zero risk of large accidental costs, also its a more resilient to disasters or sabotage as well. I think a few guys with some cutting torches could take out power production from our nuclear plants in southern Ontario one night, with little chance of being caught. Or one good tornado might cause enough damage to melt the whole thing down?
Indeed. I think the point of contention is that, when considering the overall efficiency of 30% relative to the lifetime of the turbine, even though the input itself is "free", does the relatively poor overall output relative to that efficiency (calculated at just under 1MW for a 2.5MW unit) yield a net positive when considering the manufacture, fabrication, construction, transport, installation, wiring and periodic "bump" from the grid to start a stationary unit if necessary?
Well there's lots of people in windy places that use wind power exclusively with no grid connection, so in certain conditions it makes economic sense.
How about we add on the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima to the cost of nuclear energy? $750B and $150B, respectively. Sure it doesn't show up on our power bills, but nuclear as a power source has that level of risk associated with it. Then there is the waste, the cost of storing it safely is not small, and then there is the potential for a spill or leak for many times the length of recorded human history...
Atleast with wind and solar we pay nearly all the costs upfront with zero risk of large accidental costs, also its a more resilient to disasters or sabotage as well. I think a few guys with some cutting torches could take out power production from our nuclear plants in southern Ontario one night, with little chance of being caught. Or one good tornado might cause enough damage to melt the whole thing down?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Well there's lots of people in windy places that use wind power exclusively with no grid connection, so in certain conditions it makes economic sense.
For an individual, certainly. They didn't manufacture the wind turbine and they would also use battery banks that are charged by that wind turbine that they didn't manufacture either. I'm talking of the manufacturing costs here (in terms of energy) versus the power the unit makes during its lifespan.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How about we add on the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima to the cost of nuclear energy? $750B and $150B, respectively.
Again, that's a monetary cost. Chernobyl was, while being a massive environmental disaster, still making power even after its disaster, right up until around the year 2000 actually. Also, that plant is a horrific example of the safety of Nuclear power, the bloody thing had a partial meltdown in '82 as well on Unit #1.
Fukushima was built on a fault line and hit by a Tsunami, and the generator placement had been taken issue with decades before the disaster and Tepco REFUSED to change it. Had the generators been relocated to where they were advised to be placed, the entire disaster, despite the quake, despite the Tsunami, despite the age and repair of the facility, would have been avoided.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Sure it doesn't show up on our power bills, but nuclear as a power source has that level of risk associated with it.
Modern nuclear power, particularly in Canada, does NOT have a Chernobyl-level of risk associated with it, nor even a Fukushima one. None of our reactors are built on fault lines, they are NOT BWR reactors, being CANDU, and none of them could be hit by a Tsunami. That's fear-mongering that misconstrues not only the differences in technology and reactor design but also the environmental and situational contributors, which were essential to causing the issue at Fukushima, without even factoring in the issues with the site itself.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Then there is the waste, the cost of storing it safely is not small, and then there is the potential for a spill or leak for many times the length of recorded human history...
How does a fuel rod (which is solid) spill or leak? Used fuel rods are the big "problem" when talking containment; the waste associated with running a reactor. However as the French are doing, these rods CAN be reused in a fast breed reactor, which drops their levels of radiation down to close to negligible and their containment life down to around 100 years with far less stringent requirements. I shared a paper on this somewhat recently as it is really the future of nuclear power and eliminates the biggest issue with the technology, which is the waste, and of course the benefit is even more generating capacity from those rods.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Atleast with wind and solar we pay nearly all the costs upfront with zero risk of large accidental costs,
Yes, you pay the monetary cost up front. But I was talking about the energy cost in their manufacture. But your point on potential disasters is well received, they certainly carry with them the lowest risk factor of any current generating method.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
also its a more resilient to disasters or sabotage as well. I think a few guys with some cutting torches could take out power production from our nuclear plants in southern Ontario one night, with little chance of being caught. Or one good tornado might cause enough damage to melt the whole thing down?
No, a tornado wouldn't take out any of our nuclear sites, you really should read into the construction of these things. They would have to literally have bombs dropped on them to cause enough damage to affect the built-in safety mechanisms. They are extremely robust.
A few guys with some cutting torches could take the grid connects from any generating source offline. And a wind farm can be significantly damaged by high winds, just like a solar farm can be devastated by hail, both of which are realities in this province. I get that you are a fan of green energy, I'm a HUGE fan of hydro electric. I simply don't see wind or solar, in their current state, even being comparable to the current staples of generation, which make not only massively more power, but are able to do it around the clock and provide base-load, which these means are not. Its like trying to haul a loaded 54-foot trailer with a Smart 4-2, sure if you get enough of them lined up in a row they could theoretically pull it but the logistics make it impossible. The same goes for trying to replace massive base-load providers with irregular and inconsistent non-base generators. On the other hand, one would be capable of hauling around a utility trailer with one (your off-grid example).
My question, from which this went tangential, wasn't on whether a wind turbine, when connected to a battery bank, could sustain an off-grid household. It was whether during the life of that generator, does it make more, and then if so, how much more, of the energy used to bring it from conception to installation? Not the monetary cost, which is a legitimate discussion on its own, since a 2.5MW unit is around 3 million dollars.
Well there's lots of people in windy places that use wind power exclusively with no grid connection, so in certain conditions it makes economic sense.
For an individual, certainly. They didn't manufacture the wind turbine and they would also use battery banks that are charged by that wind turbine that they didn't manufacture either. I'm talking of the manufacturing costs here (in terms of energy) versus the power the unit makes during its lifespan.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How about we add on the cost of Chernobyl and Fukushima to the cost of nuclear energy? $750B and $150B, respectively.
Again, that's a monetary cost. Chernobyl was, while being a massive environmental disaster, still making power even after its disaster, right up until around the year 2000 actually. Also, that plant is a horrific example of the safety of Nuclear power, the bloody thing had a partial meltdown in '82 as well on Unit #1.
Fukushima was built on a fault line and hit by a Tsunami, and the generator placement had been taken issue with decades before the disaster and Tepco REFUSED to change it. Had the generators been relocated to where they were advised to be placed, the entire disaster, despite the quake, despite the Tsunami, despite the age and repair of the facility, would have been avoided.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Sure it doesn't show up on our power bills, but nuclear as a power source has that level of risk associated with it.
Modern nuclear power, particularly in Canada, does NOT have a Chernobyl-level of risk associated with it, nor even a Fukushima one. None of our reactors are built on fault lines, they are NOT BWR reactors, being CANDU, and none of them could be hit by a Tsunami. That's fear-mongering that misconstrues not only the differences in technology and reactor design but also the environmental and situational contributors, which were essential to causing the issue at Fukushima, without even factoring in the issues with the site itself.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Then there is the waste, the cost of storing it safely is not small, and then there is the potential for a spill or leak for many times the length of recorded human history...
How does a fuel rod (which is solid) spill or leak? Used fuel rods are the big "problem" when talking containment; the waste associated with running a reactor. However as the French are doing, these rods CAN be reused in a fast breed reactor, which drops their levels of radiation down to close to negligible and their containment life down to around 100 years with far less stringent requirements. I shared a paper on this somewhat recently as it is really the future of nuclear power and eliminates the biggest issue with the technology, which is the waste, and of course the benefit is even more generating capacity from those rods.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Atleast with wind and solar we pay nearly all the costs upfront with zero risk of large accidental costs,
Yes, you pay the monetary cost up front. But I was talking about the energy cost in their manufacture. But your point on potential disasters is well received, they certainly carry with them the lowest risk factor of any current generating method.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
also its a more resilient to disasters or sabotage as well. I think a few guys with some cutting torches could take out power production from our nuclear plants in southern Ontario one night, with little chance of being caught. Or one good tornado might cause enough damage to melt the whole thing down?
No, a tornado wouldn't take out any of our nuclear sites, you really should read into the construction of these things. They would have to literally have bombs dropped on them to cause enough damage to affect the built-in safety mechanisms. They are extremely robust.
A few guys with some cutting torches could take the grid connects from any generating source offline. And a wind farm can be significantly damaged by high winds, just like a solar farm can be devastated by hail, both of which are realities in this province. I get that you are a fan of green energy, I'm a HUGE fan of hydro electric. I simply don't see wind or solar, in their current state, even being comparable to the current staples of generation, which make not only massively more power, but are able to do it around the clock and provide base-load, which these means are not. Its like trying to haul a loaded 54-foot trailer with a Smart 4-2, sure if you get enough of them lined up in a row they could theoretically pull it but the logistics make it impossible. The same goes for trying to replace massive base-load providers with irregular and inconsistent non-base generators. On the other hand, one would be capable of hauling around a utility trailer with one (your off-grid example).
My question, from which this went tangential, wasn't on whether a wind turbine, when connected to a battery bank, could sustain an off-grid household. It was whether during the life of that generator, does it make more, and then if so, how much more, of the energy used to bring it from conception to installation? Not the monetary cost, which is a legitimate discussion on its own, since a 2.5MW unit is around 3 million dollars.
To use renewable energy on large scale would need large change in consumer expectations and habits. After decarbonisation every aspect of our lifes would change. There's no way world could sustain this level of productivity with renewable energy. We as a civilization reached a peak in production of cheap pos that nobody really needs.
I'm not surprised. How many OEM parts on GM and Chrysler cars were made in China?
- Status
Similar threads
