Wind generation

Status
Not open for further replies.

76nemo

Senior Member
Location
Ogdensburg, NY
Well, not sure if this is the right chapter for this thread, but I'll give it a whirl.
As far as energy, the biggest gripe for the last 2-3 years here has been wind farms. Are any other's hearing as much grief as I over this new growing technology?
 

LawnGuyLandSparky

Senior Member
I've been reading up on them. It seems in Europe they've found they're not all they're cracked up to be, they don't lessen the need for traditional power plants, and they're not cost effective.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Basically even though the input "fuel" is technically free with wind generators, the capital investment and maintenance is still higher per watt produced than fossil fuels, even with the higher oil prices. But it is getting closer as fossil fuel prices continue to increase. My suspicion is that the dinosaur-juice suckers will continue to raise prices as long as they can get away with it, but once the cost-per-watt for alternatives start to cross over, the oil prices will drop again just to keep them (alternatives) on the high side.
 

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
There's seldom a morning goes by that I don't see blades for these windmills passing me going south on the interstate. GE makes them north of me. Just watched a thing on TV a couple weeks back where they reviewed the overhaul process for the transmissions in these buggers. I can't help but to believe that the payback on those things can't make any sense at all. We need to build about 50 more nuclear power plants.
 

e57

Senior Member
Altamont Pass here in CA (part of 4 different wind farms that spread down the Central Valley) - I go by tiny portion of it on the freeway from time to time. Most of the time the wind is blowing those old '70's antiques are frozen solid. Too many moving parts and not enough money so they say.

There are several different mid-70's models out there - none of them 1/2 as big as what is being made today. If they were cars - they would be Ford Pinto's - compared to:
153-5080-1a.jpg


That said the shear quanity of them do have some considerable output. The Eco-Nazi's want them taken down due to a few (92 annual average) bird deaths (over an enourmous area of central California - hard to even see from space...), and if they do the developers will put up some of the nastiest looking cookie cutter tract housing ever seen. IMO they should rip out all 900 or so of the little 50-100' high ones that they hide in the hills and replace with skyscaper sized ones - so high birds cant fly up near them. Big enough to see from my house through the haze.

Personally I think they should put a few on this 900' tall Godzilla movie of a Radio Tower right smack in the middle of the city. (1/4 mile from my house...)

250px-Sutro.jpg

Immediately followed by putting a dam on the Sacremento River - just a little higher than the Governors Mansion. :D ;)
 
Last edited:

e57

Senior Member
I forgot to add - due to the amount of wind I get at my home - If they made a small REALLY quiet one - I wouldn't mind one on my roof. But doubt I could get it past the planning stage in an urban area....
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
One of the issues with wind is the power availability. If the wind isn't blowing you are not making any power. The utilities have to provide reliable power so they have to have other types of plants to make the required power when the wind is not blowing. Another issue is the changing output power of the wind system. It makes the base load plants cycle up and down to keep the generation balanced with the load, and puts additional stresses on an already stressed transmission system. Base load plants were designed to run in a steady state.
Don
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
mdshunk said:
There's seldom a morning goes by that I don't see blades for these windmills passing me going south on the interstate. GE makes them north of me. Just watched a thing on TV a couple weeks back where they reviewed the overhaul process for the transmissions in these buggers. I can't help but to believe that the payback on those things can't make any sense at all. We need to build about 50 more nuclear power plants.

We are! There are new licences being submitted and approved evry month.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=193254&page=1
 

LawnGuyLandSparky

Senior Member
don_resqcapt19 said:
One of the issues with wind is the power availability. If the wind isn't blowing you are not making any power.

And to add insult to injury, with the new generation of wind generation the blades must be kept moving, even when there's no wind, so they become motors, gigantic fans really.
 

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
Here are some hard numbers on electrical plant construction and maintenance for people to review. Better than spreading rumors. These numbers are based on large scale production. 600 mega-W for a coal plant or 50 mega-W for a wind plant.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3

Wind plant costs $1,206/kW for construction
O&M costs $28.51/kW

Scrubbed Coal plant costs $1,290/kW for construction
O&M costs $25.91/kW + $4.32 mills/kWh

Advanced Nuclear costs $2,081/kW for construction
O&M costs $63.88/kW + $0.47 mills/kWh


Edit:
Is anyone else able to figure out the variable O&M unit cost? $4.32/kWh doesn't make sense because Utilities sell electricity at $0.08/kWh. Maybe it's $4.32/ million kWh. I just thought the fuel cost more. I ended up copying it per the table.
 
Last edited:

beanland

Senior Member
Location
Vancouver, WA
Wind and More Wind

Wind and More Wind

I have been involved in the design and commissioning of wind plants since 2001. New machines are typically 1500kW-3000kW. Towers are 300+ feet. Blade spans are 200+ feet. Many machines are induction generators but newer technoloogies are showing up. Yes, maintenance is high but newer designs are solving some of the issues; 5000Hp transmissions, massive hydraulic motors, lightning strikes! An entire 450MW plant can go from no production to full production in 5 minutes as a weather front moves through. Wind will only work in conjunction with power that is dispatchable. Hydro and wind are a perfect match: you do not spill as much water when the wind is blowing. IMHO, I would rather have a wind plant near by than a nuclear one.
 

rcwilson

Senior Member
Location
Redmond, WA
Wind versus base load power

Wind versus base load power

When I build a 450 MW gas-fired power plant it can be dispatched by the utility to produce 450MW with some variations due to ambient temperature (10%). The annual plant capacity factor can approach 90-95% meaning that 90% of the time you can count on it to supply 450MW.

But a 100 MW wind farm (30-35 300 ft towers with 3,000 kW turbines) can only produce 100 MW when a strong steady wind is blowing. With typical capacity factors of 10-15% we have to build a 100 MW wind farm to be able to count on 10 MW of output.

This is why the $/kW comparision is a little skewed. A kW of thermal plant capacity will generate more kwh over its life than a kW of wind power.

That said, I'm all for wind farms, tidal power, solar power, bio-mass, small head hydro and other alteranative energy. I just don't think we can count on them to supply our base load that keeps our economy running.
 
Last edited:

beanland

Senior Member
Location
Vancouver, WA
Wind Farm Capacity Factor

Wind Farm Capacity Factor

Wind farms are being built where annual capacity factors of about 30-35% are achieved. Projects where capacity factor is lower are not as cost-effective so are not being pursued.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
rcwilson said:
That said, I'm all for wind farms, tidal power, solar power, bio-mass, small head hydro and other alteranative energy. I just don't think we can count on them to supply our base load that keeps our economy running.

True, alternative energy (excluding hydro) accounts for a tiny fraction of power needs in this country. They just cannot compete with the energy density of fossil fuels and nuclear. The bottom line is that our power need is so voracious in our nation that alternative energies have no chance of supplying any more than a small fraction in the long term.

The only real solution to our power needs is nuclear.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
An recent article in Scientific American magazine said that if we wanted to spend the money we could get 50% of our electric power from solar by 2050. They show covering thousands of square miles of the south west with panels. They talked about using compressed air storage to store energy in the day time and release it in the dark.
 
L

Lxnxjxhx

Guest
Wind generation

I heard there is not much interest in this, or solar power, or geothermal, because the supply of the energy cannot be manipulated (and therefore the prices cannot be manipulated.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
don_resqcapt19 said:
An recent article in Scientific American magazine said that if we wanted to spend the money we could get 50% of our electric power from solar by 2050. They show covering thousands of square miles of the south west with panels. They talked about using compressed air storage to store energy in the day time and release it in the dark.

Just from a technical standpoint this sounds absurd.
 

beanland

Senior Member
Location
Vancouver, WA
Distributed Generation

Distributed Generation

Solar central plant generation will probably never make much headway. Solar photovoltaics as distributed generation probably will (IMHO.) If the generation can be kept close to the load, losses in distribution can be reduced. There are a lot of roofs that could have solar panels added. It is not cost-effective, yet.

Storage of power is a big issue. Even for conventional power plants. A thermal plant (coal, nuclear) need constant load. Natural gas and hydro can be used as peaking or bas load plants. A mix of base load and peaking plants are needed regardless of fuel source. Years ago PG&E built a hugh pumped storage plant to pump water up hill at night and let if fall down by day to drive generators. The idea was to use "cheap" nuclear power at night.

Nuclear generators are not a savior. They are strictly base load plants. And, the waste materials need to be safely stored for 1000's of years. A broad mix of power sources are needed.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
The problem with wind is the same problem as with solar PV.

A fair amount of the power is only available when it is not really needed, and when it is needed it is not available. It means that when you rely on them, you have to build expensive generating capacity that is not used except to make up for the time wind and PV fails you. One of the dirty little secrets the greenies don't like to talk about.

PV peaks in the afternoon, but it is later in the day that you use the most energy, so even if you got a lot of PV during the day, you need capacity later in the evening that PV cannot supply.

Wind is more consistent at night, but you don't need it then because you use less power at night.

Coal, nukes, NG, and hydro are available 24/7.
 

beanland

Senior Member
Location
Vancouver, WA
Power Demand = People Demand

Power Demand = People Demand

You are absolutely correct. Wind and solar are not available 24x7. The American electric system was built on the assumption that power would be available whenever it was wanted. Basically, demand would not be controlled. Maybe we need to rethink this basic tenet.

Each power source has a down side. Hydro dams rivers, displaces people, and affects fish habitat. Nuclear creates toxic waste in during fuel enrichment and as a waste product. Natural gas is limited in supply and creates greenhouse gases. Coal creates greenhouse gases and other nasty waste products.

If we ignore the waste products, the traditional fuels are perfect for an uncontrolled power system. Once we start to consider really long term costs and impacts from traditional sources, wind and PV start to look better. Once these long term costs are considered, ones our children and their children will pay for, we need to accept that we cannot continue along the same power use paths. Perhaps we need to mitigate our power demands to better match the available sources of power rather than generate power to match our demands without considering the long term consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top