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

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Wow, man. this goup of dufuses really needed you to boil down that

100% common sense basic math problem you solved for us.

The answer is blowin' in the wind

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Again, it did not need to be.

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

-----------

** Oh dear - that is very witty.

..... Phil

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.

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

** All this "tilting at windmills" stuff if getting nowhere.

The stupid things are boring as batshit.

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

However, there is another use for big propellers which this short vid explains in an entertaining way:

Shows the development of the Bell 47 helicopter, the first of its kind.

..... Phil

shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

thinks that it is some way off.

root of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four t imes taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. I found info on a 3.4 MW unit that is 8

09 feet tall (246 m). So we would be looking at a tower that would be some thing approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swept area could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would d o. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.

ionable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would ne ed to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since the blades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile heig ht.

Towers 200 feet or taller require lighting, per FAA regulations. It is e ven lower, near airports. (Original call of WIYE) WACX-TV was denied 130 f eet AAT at their original site, near Leesburg, Florida. Their new transmitt er site had a 1700 foot tower that would never stand the wind loading for a windmill cost over $1,000,000 to build in the mid '80s.

Calculate the wind loading for a tower for a tower capable of supporting a 12MW windmill at that height. Don't forget the additional physical stren gth requirements for hurricane winds, or tornadoes.

WMRX in Destin was limited to 130 feet, because of the nearby Air Force Base.

I don't think wind constancy improves with height (above ground), although it does with altitude (above sea level). Hence (unless you build a small rotor on a high tower!) I don't think constancy will be improved by increased windmill diameter.

The key metric is power per unit land area.

A key issue is that as wind turbines in a wind farm increase in diameter, they have to be spaced further apart. Unfortunately the diameters cancel, so power per unit land area remains constant as diameter is increased. The estimate of available onshore wind power for the UK is around 3W/m2. N.B. that "m2" is *land* area, not rotor area.

Then there is the issue of wind shear. As a rule of thumb, doubling the height (above the surrounding countryside) increases the windspeed by 10% and the power available by 30%.

Source, and FFI: the TAoE of energy use and generation, "Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air" p263-268

The (free) pdf is probably more readable.

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons. Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

Tell that to England, where "Renewables provide nearly a third of power in the UK and half is generated from wind." And more massive additional offshore wind farms are coming online soon. "The cost of new offshore wind has fallen by 50% since 2015."

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win

W shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

ut thinks that it is some way off.

e root of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four times taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. 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 so mething approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swep t area could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would do. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would impl y in terms of visual impact or other problems.

ctionable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would need to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since th e blades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile he ight.

even lower, near airports. (Original call of WIYE) WACX-TV was denied 130 feet AAT at their original site, near Leesburg, Florida. Their new transmi tter site had a 1700 foot tower that would never stand the wind loading for a windmill cost over $1,000,000 to build in the mid '80s.

ng a 12MW windmill at that height. Don't forget the additional physical str ength requirements for hurricane winds, or tornadoes.

e Base.

No one would put a 12 MW windmill on such a tall tower. We were discussing a 100 MW windmill. With 10 of these being 1 GW they would still be much, much cheaper than a nuclear power plant at $15-$20 billion each. No need t o store nuclear waste or worry about the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Funny that you think the millions it costs to erect the tower is significan t. Windmills cost $1 to $2 million per MW of capacity. So even a 12 MW wi ndmill will almost certainly have tower costs in the millions since the tot al cost will be around $20 million.

I guess you would totally freak out if you knew what it costs to build a nu ke plant... if it is ever finished.

--

  Rick C. 

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

shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

thinks that it is some way off.

d maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

ld-solve

been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

You seem to be a bit confused. You stated the limitations of nuclear but u se the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind power, b ut you used the name 'Nuclear".

Your link is to one of the lamest rationalizations of using nuclear I've ev er seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuclear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generation. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hy drogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putting a ny of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the past.

--

  Rick C. 

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

I wonder what they will do when the wind doesn't blow. Either cut loads, or have 100% fossil or nuclear capacity on hot standby. If the latter, full capital costs and support have to be paid for the windfarms and the conventional plants.

Solar has the same problem, just different timing.

I used to design gear for oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. That environment will eat anything that's not 316 stainless, and a serious hurricane will blow most anything away. An 800 foot high wind turbine is a lot of wind surface, a lot of lever arm.

The Gulf has fleets of boats and helicopters to shuttle workers to the rigs. Maintenance is very expensive offshore.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Oh the 'birds'

Unfortunately, when there is no wind, both variants are 0MW turbines. So you need a backup power plant to fill the gap. Greta wouldn't enjoy a sudden blackout, I'm afraid.

Best regards, Piotr

Yes, it will be great when we don't need them anymore. I guess some of them can work on the windmills.

--

  Rick C. 

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