|
Post by Ratty on Feb 26, 2016 23:05:57 GMT
Looking at that graph makes me wonder if the wind harvest diminishes with increasing turbine numbers? Turbulence, breeze disruption .... ? PS: Apologies for coming so late to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 27, 2016 1:54:50 GMT
I believe the sea based wind farms are worst.
Apparently, they were designed for a 15 year life, and many are surviving about five.
Salt spray and delicate electrical machinery don't go well together.
Oh well, I suppose the artificial, trawl free reefs that are being created will form some sort of fish life reserve.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2016 12:16:18 GMT
I believe the sea based wind farms are worst. Apparently, they were designed for a 15 year life, and many are surviving about five. Salt spray and delicate electrical machinery don't go well together. Oh well, I suppose the artificial, trawl free reefs that are being created will form some sort of fish life reserve. anyone that has worked on seabed structures would have told them to reduce any 'lifing' to 30% of what they were told, then add the continual torque stress and some rythmic out of balance vibration and erosion around the bases of the structures by sea currents.... 5 years useful life may be optimistic in some areas What that really means is that they need continual maintenance to keep functioning. There must be a rather short queue of engineers prepared to climb 400ft above the surface into the nacelles of these structures that by design were placed in the windiest regions. It is completely unclear if lifetime costs like that were even considered. Imagine the work involved in cleaning the blades, a few birdstrikes with the partial bird still on the blades and the out-of-balance vibration of the blade will destroy the turnbine structure relatively rapidly. Same with icing for those subsidy farms that are in cold areas any anti-ice coating will soon be too dirty to work unless cleaned. I would not be surprised to find that rather like other large engineering projects that the cost of building these wind turbines is only about 5% of the lifetime cost. Investors only thinking about the capital cost (the 5%) are in for an unpleasant surprise. Try to cut costs on the lifetime support and the lifetime sharply reduces. The only reason anyone invested in these subsidy farms was the subsidy. I expect to see more and more of the subsidy farmers declaring bankruptcy and leaving these artificial reefs as a danger to wildlife, shipping and aircraft for the foreseeable future. I think I can guarantee that none of the government contracts include a process for removing defunct subsidy farms. They should have had a significant sum of money in escrow to pay for the removal of failed projects. Scotland will be scarred for centuries by these follies.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2016 11:43:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 28, 2016 21:57:58 GMT
Nature's spoken.....this tree is now no longer...blowin' in the wind...
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 29, 2016 1:55:28 GMT
are they priuses?
what is this trying to tell us?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 29, 2016 10:08:36 GMT
are they priuses? what is this trying to tell us? Just struck by the irony of it, originally posted on hotrod mag Facebook page... What are the odds on a falling tree taking out 3 prius??? Likely never happen again! Looking at...maybe 4
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 29, 2016 11:42:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 29, 2016 12:05:31 GMT
are they priuses? what is this trying to tell us? Just struck by the irony of it, originally posted on hotrod mag Facebook page... What are the odds on a falling tree taking out 3 prius??? Likely never happen again! Looking at...maybe 4 Anyone consulted the Guinness Book of Records?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 2, 2016 3:04:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 3, 2016 23:14:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2016 21:37:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 30, 2016 20:46:36 GMT
www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/03/29/the-myth-of-wind-and-solar-capacity/#79b4328a18dcLast week, our Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration released an announcement and a graph that appeared to show wind as the leading new source of electricity. “Wind, natural gas, and solar made up almost all new electric generation capacity in 2015, accounting for 41%, 30%, and 26% of total additions, respectively, according to preliminary data. The data also show a record amount of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was added on rooftops throughout the country in 2015.”
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Mar 30, 2016 20:57:54 GMT
I wonder where this is?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 5, 2016 21:01:18 GMT
www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11347962/net-powerI have always been skeptical about carbon capture and sequestration at fossil-fueled power plants. It's not so much the technological barriers — they are serious, though not insurmountable — but the cost. Fossil fuel power plants have steadily gotten more efficient, but the problem is, no matter how efficient your plant is, capturing the carbon dioxide emissions involves bolting on a second facility to process and separate the waste gases. That second facility requires power (it's a "parasitic load," cutting into efficiency), and it adds to capital costs. Coal and natural gas are already losing out to wind in many areas, without sequestration. Once you add sequestration, even as wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper, how can fossil fuels with CCS possibly compete?
|
|