Author Topic: Wind turbine destruction  (Read 36812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TopLoser

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2015, 12:43:22 am »
Magical sight from my office... levitating turbines!
 

Offline TopLoser

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2015, 12:54:38 am »
Magical sight from my office... levitating turbines!

Bugger the turbines. that's an amazing vertical horizon. A verizon.

Australian version attached
 

Offline GreyWoolfe

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3401
  • Country: us
  • NW0LF
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2015, 12:57:51 am »
Quote
putting wind turbines that near houses is a stupid idea.

Don't know. It seems to me that anyone voting for wind turbines should have one installed in their backyard - why should they push the negative externalities associated with their pet projects onto the rest of us?

If they think it is good for us, it must be good for them too.

I look out of my office window and see 75 x 3.6MW turbines. They supply 2/3 of the electric for the county I live in. I think they are a fabulous sight, love them. They are less than 6Km away and I'm totally unaware that they are there. I welcome the plans to build another 250 of them.

5 or 6 km away is one thing.  I don't want one anywhere near my house where a catastrophic failure could could cause injury or damage to my home, property or family.  Don't have to worry about it, I live near a commuter airport and there is a 26 foot structure height limit.  I am also sure that any strobing of daylight into my office window would send me over the edge.
"Heaven has been described as the place that once you get there all the dogs you ever loved run up to greet you."
 

Offline TopLoser

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2015, 01:03:37 am »
Quote
I live near a commuter airport

Give me the turbines any day of the week instead of an airport.
 

Offline netdudeuk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 409
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2015, 01:21:44 am »
Quote
I'd say that a more interesting statistic would be the increased number of senior citizens dying due to hyperthermia brought on by the shocking renewable tariffs added to our energy bills.

The only thing green about those "green energy sources" is the giant socking sound of your money going into some else's pockets.

Completely agree.  Makes me so angry and the idiot who signed the UK up for some of the most difficult 'green' targets in the world may well be the Prime Minister in five months time.
 

Offline ovnr

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 658
  • Country: no
  • Lurker
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2015, 01:24:27 am »
I've found wind turbines to be rather ridiculously over-hyped (OMFG fifty 2.5MW turbines! Just a shame wind speeds need to be at record levels 24/7 for that to be a reality...). Locally there's plans to build a massive wind farm right next to one of the very few popular tourist spots (some skiing thing on a mountain); I can only imagine they picked the location in part so the local politicians can croon about how green we are and that everyone gets their nose rubbed in it.

(It seems at least every other local project has a larger focus on attracting media attention so vain politicians can appear in the paper than providing any benefit to the local population.)

No, build them on a remote mountain or field or at sea and I'm fine with it. Not thrilled, but fine with it.


As for the "Well if you don't like turbines you must love coal!" argument: No. The "new" renewables make little sense where I live (little wind, little sunshine) - the only good option is hydro, which seems to be even less popular than fossil fuel-burning plants. Or go nuclear, which is my preferred option (and ideally dump the politicos into the damn reactor while you're at it).
 

Offline GreyWoolfe

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3401
  • Country: us
  • NW0LF
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2015, 01:41:48 am »
Quote
I live near a commuter airport

Give me the turbines any day of the week instead of an airport.

Not a busy airport.  Very little day traffic during the week, the weekend is busier but only during the day-still not that many planes.  Almost no night flying.  I hear the trains more that are twice the distance from my house as the airport.  Besides, there are some cool looking experimental aircraft that fly out of it.  I have no issues with turbines, just don't want it close enough to be a threat from a failure.  I live off to the side of the single runway so a whole lot of things have to go horrifically wrong before there is even a remote chance of a plane landing on my house.  5 or 6 km is fine, I don't want it a couple of lots over.
"Heaven has been described as the place that once you get there all the dogs you ever loved run up to greet you."
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5352
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2015, 05:00:44 am »
This is vaguely electronics, right?

2500kW wind turbine took a tumble not to far from home.
Each rotor blade is 9 tonnes, and the whole rotor is 52 tonnes. That's quite a mass to go flying around.

I wonder if there is a breakdown of wind turbine failures due to build quality issues versus failures due to extreme weather conditions exceeding the design envelope?
From what I've read, they don't even allow them to run when the winds are high.
They are supposed to shut down in very high winds, when the governor systems can no longer regulate their speed properly. However, that doesn't just make the thing go away, and not be influenced by the massive wind. It seems most failures occur in high winds. Is this because of poor design, manufacture or maintenance, or is it because the freaky high winds just overwhelm the design (i.e. the wind can be much more aggressive than the designers expected)?

There were lots of tidal power experiments in the 60s and 70s and the thing which defeated most of them was the need to withstand the super storm that comes once every few years. A problem with most mechanical structures is that when they are pushed a bit too far they don't just bend a bit, they fall apart completely. Wind and tide are subject to some occasional massive surges, like the UK storms of 1987, and you see total failure of trees and structures which had stood for centuries.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2015, 05:51:40 am »
As for the "Well if you don't like turbines you must love coal!" argument: No. The "new" renewables make little sense where I live (little wind, little sunshine) - the only good option is hydro, which seems to be even less popular than fossil fuel-burning plants. Or go nuclear, which is my preferred option (and ideally dump the politicos into the damn reactor while you're at it).

Aren't you a inch or two from Denmark on the map? I saw a claim that 30% of their annual KWH is coming from wind. If so, this is quiet impressive technically (don't know about cost).
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15379
  • Country: za
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2015, 06:05:02 am »
Denmark, exposed to the North sea and the warm water left over from the Gulf stream. Norway gets the rain as they are the mountain range stopping the wind. As well the Danes only really have wind power, they wheel power across the country from one side to the other with the other ones having the coal and nuclear plants.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5352
  • Country: gb
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2015, 06:28:14 am »
As for the "Well if you don't like turbines you must love coal!" argument: No. The "new" renewables make little sense where I live (little wind, little sunshine) - the only good option is hydro, which seems to be even less popular than fossil fuel-burning plants. Or go nuclear, which is my preferred option (and ideally dump the politicos into the damn reactor while you're at it).

Aren't you a inch or two from Denmark on the map? I saw a claim that 30% of their annual KWH is coming from wind. If so, this is quiet impressive technically (don't know about cost).
Read more carefully. Denmark actually gets none of its annual kWh from its wind farms. It exports their entire output, and imports reliable hydro power from Scandinavia to run the country. This has been their way to sidestep the storage problem, but the cost is high, and their approach doesn't scale.
 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Country: dk
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2015, 08:09:59 am »
coppice i dont agree. Some off you facts are just wrong


For example see pic 


2803 MW windturbine


973 MW Import
600 MW Import
1532 MW export
351 MW export
810 MW export


so now we use 1700 MW windturbine ourself the rest is export !




If there is some one to blaim it is Germany !




Here are some links
http://www.energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/index.html
http://www.energinet.dk/DA/OM-OS/Sider/Det-nordiske-elsystem.aspx
 

Offline Stigaard

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: dk
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2015, 08:11:07 am »
Quote
Read more carefully. Denmark actually gets none of its annual kWh from its wind farms. It exports their entire output, and imports reliable hydro power from Scandinavia to run the country. This has been their way to sidestep the storage problem, but the cost is high, and their approach doesn't scale.

Actually 26.7% of Denmarks electricity consumption came from wind in 2013 if you correct for export, if you don't 32.5% so yes the grid is used as a buffer, however not nearly the entire output. (26.7% is from eurostat, 32.5% is from energistyrelsen ?Danish ministry of energy)

There is however from time to time an overproduction caused by the windmills just during the Christmas holidays for example we had negative energy prices ie. you were paid to consume electricity, this was because we had high winds combined with closed factories, this happens every couple of years.
 

Offline Thilo78

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Country: de
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2015, 09:23:46 am »
Sometimes they catch fire...

I wonder how frequent this is?  There's a large wind farm near me, I go past it on the train every morning, and I've seen no fires yet. This must mean wind turbines never catch fire. (Of course if I saw one near me burning, I would immediately assume they all are due to catch fire.)

Well, I don't know the actual frequency of those events, but I read about three or four here in Germany, that failed during heavy winds or due to construction failure.

AFAIK, a common failure mode is overspeed (due to strong winds). This leads to overheating of the bearings and thus having them jam and lose a blade, or overtemperature in the bearings and thus fires.


This one burnt out in Magdeburg, Germany, following overheating of the bearings and generator:


And this one in Denmark collapsed after losing a blade:
 

Online dr.diesel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2172
  • Country: us
  • Cramming the magic smoke back in...
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2015, 09:53:06 am »
There are a couple hundred GE 1.1MW units about 2-hours north of my house in Benton/Kentland Indiana.  These units control speed by pitching the turbine blades, which can rotate all the way back, effectively making them sterile.

There is a fairly bright light on the peak of each turbine, and they blink in unison, light up the entire area.  Glad I don't live too close.  Probably more annoying than the light pollution is the very low frequency whooshing sound they make, like a train in the far distance.

I'm all for green energy, but I would not live anywhere near one.  During the day they'd not be a problem, but as an insomniac, it would push me over the edge at night.

Offline VK5RC

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2417
  • Country: au
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2015, 11:37:24 am »
@Stigaard  I am moving to Denmark! Negative electricity prices !   HiHi

In South Australia, we are close to the roaring forties winds so wind is pretty good here, we have about 1500MW of wind turbines, they generate about 30% of the state's electricity and operate at about 30% of their maximum or "name plate" capacity over a year.
I wouldn't like to be one of the engineers who balances the whole electrical grid; solar and wind along with ad breaks in TV-boiling kettles etc  mucking up supply/demand and all the voltage sensitive modern electronics connected to the grid!
Just to really do his/her 'head in' the price of electricity varies by time as well, they have to do it cheaply!
Whoah! Watch where that landed we might need it later.
 

Offline electrophiliate

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Country: au
  • Eternal Novice
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2015, 11:50:50 am »
Reminds me of this video ...



Presumably the wind turbine scene was a response to news stories such as:

"Industry warns NSW could lose 10 wind farms, $2.5 billion under Tony Abbott's plan to cut clean energy"
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/industry-warns-nsw-could-lose-10-wind-farms-25-billion-under-tony-abbotts-plan-to-cut-clean-energy-20141024-11apwj.html

"Joe Hockey says wind turbines 'utterly offensive', flags budget cuts to clean energy schemes"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-02/joe-hockey-wind-turbines-utterly-offensive/5425804
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 11:54:21 am by electrophiliate »
Nothing is quite like a great humming power-station.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2015, 11:50:59 am »
Quote
light up the entire area. 

Not to mention low freqency noises those things generate.

Quote
Glad I don't live too close.

The Kennedy's agree with you as well. As much as they love all things wind energy, they fought tooth and nail to move a wind farm project from their backyard. What's good for you the mortals apparently aren't good enough for those guys.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2015, 12:14:42 pm »
Nuclear has a horrible failure rate. Of around 435 civilian reactors in the world, 6 have failed catastrophically which is about 1.3%. Many more have had serious but less costly failures and accidents. Imagine if 1.3% of passenger aircraft crashed, it would never be tolerated. Energy seems to be an exception though, e.g. we tolerate massive oil spills and wars over it.

It's a case of there being no better alternative.

I am pro wind, and to a limited extent pro solar. However, they cannot provide for 100% of our demands without ridiculous amounts of grid storage. Simple fact - during the June/July months wind power was only providing about 10% of its nominal output. How can that work? We'd need 10 x as many turbines to just get a base load, and most of the time, they'd just be off or idling, making the cost of wind power far too high.

Nuclear is extremely safe compared to other options. The worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, has killed about 6,000 people. A series of  design errors, poor staff training and poor maintenance lead to the disaster. But alone in the USA, coal power kills ~7,500 people per year due to pollution.

The problem with nuclear is when it does go wrong, it often goes really wrong. This makes for bad PR, nuclear has serious problems with PR. But it's comparatively very safe compared to the alternatives and it's an acceptable risk in my opinion. Flying in an aircraft is something like 100x safer than driving a car, yet you don't see 24/7 coverage of car accidents.  We take flying and driving as acceptable risks, we must take nuclear as the same. (Coal could be considered an acceptable risk, but personally I think it's too much of a risk compared to the available alternatives like nuclear.)

Later reactor designs are extremely safe. Some fast reactor Gen 4 designs (prototype/research stage currently) can even work on the waste of Gen 3 reactors, which would close the fuel cycle. Of course the main reason nuclear plants aren't built as often as they were is NIMBYism. I'd honestly be 100x happier to have a nuclear plant near me than a coal plant.

Wind is cheaper than most nuclear power plants to operate, so should sell into the grid in periods of high wind, reducing overall nuclear demand and electricity prices. Since reactors take time to spin down, this would have to be planned in advance, or grid storage for the wind/nuclear would have to be used, but on a much smaller scale compared to pure solar/wind solutions. Solar can also sell into the grid but in the UK I don't really see much benefit, except maybe on residential houses as an investment.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2015, 12:19:43 pm »
The Kennedy's agree with you as well. As much as they love all things wind energy, they fought tooth and nail to move a wind farm project from their backyard. What's good for you the mortals apparently aren't good enough for those guys.

And Al Gore lives in a massive mansion with air conditioning... I mean, seriously, who cares? I mean, do you seriously believe politicians aren't hypocrites? It doesn't invalidate the argument.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2015, 12:25:21 pm »
From the link above:

Quote
"The economics don't work. Right now wind requires massive subsidies over and above other means of reducing carbon emissions," he told the ABC.

"This is not about their appearance; this about their cost and we all pay."

Those wind farms are the latest round of taxpayer funded corporate welfare / crony capitalism to a favored sector / contributors.

================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline electrophiliate

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Country: au
  • Eternal Novice
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2015, 12:34:48 pm »
From the link above:

Quote
"The economics don't work. Right now wind requires massive subsidies over and above other means of reducing carbon emissions," he told the ABC.

"This is not about their appearance; this about their cost and we all pay."

Those wind farms are the latest round of taxpayer funded corporate welfare / crony capitalism to a favored sector / contributors.

I wonder how those subsidies stack up compared to:

Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Quote
"The fossil fuel industry writ large receives around $775 billion in subsidies," Ms Whitley argued.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 12:38:10 pm by electrophiliate »
Nothing is quite like a great humming power-station.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2015, 12:40:45 pm »
Quote
I wonder how those subsidies stack up compared to:

A reasonable person would take a look at approaches utilized by a partisan report and see if those approaches make sense.

Take this for example:
Quote
exploration funding for Geoscience Australia

Maybe they should shut down Geoscience Australia, or all of scientific researches in Australia as they represent a form of subsidies? :)

Of course, it is so much easier, however dumb it may be, to quote a headline number.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline ovnr

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 658
  • Country: no
  • Lurker
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2015, 12:46:06 pm »
Nuclear has a horrible failure rate. Of around 435 civilian reactors in the world, 6 have failed catastrophically which is about 1.3%. Many more have had serious but less costly failures and accidents. Imagine if 1.3% of passenger aircraft crashed, it would never be tolerated. Energy seems to be an exception though, e.g. we tolerate massive oil spills and wars over it.

It'd be more appropriate to calculate for TWh produced before failure.

Also, six reactors failed? Fukushima's four, Chernobyl's one, and what's the last one? Three Mile Island? TMI failed in a largely safe way, Fukushima is still a bit too recent to make blanket statements about, and Chernobyl was a disaster. But both Fukushima and Chernobyl could've easily been avoided if the operators weren't morons (general idiocy at Chernobyl, and "lol we don't need to upgrade this shit, it'll be fine!" on Fukushima).

I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my backyard than a wind turbine, TBH.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: Wind turbine destruction
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2015, 02:06:32 pm »
A reasonable person would take a look at approaches utilized by a partisan report and see if those approaches make sense.

Oh, this gem again.

Subsidies for fossil fuels are much higher than those of renewables. Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377
http://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://www.odi.org/subsidies-change-the-game

This is ignoring the ~$2tn cost of the Iraq war.

The reason most of these sources aren't supporting your side is you won't hear anyone from the fossil fuel industry parroting on about it. Because it looks bad.

Renewable energy subsidies look like a drop in the bucket, about $90bn last year. 
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf