Slashdot Mirror
There's a Wind Turbine On the Horizon With Blades the Size of Trump Tower
merbs writes: Imagine a stretch of open ocean, populated by a swath of wind turbines with skyscraper-sized blades, whipping into the gusts like enormous palm trees. The vision is partly terrifying, partly inspiring, and being taken entirely seriously by the federal government and one of our top research laboratories. [Sandia National Labs, in an effort led by the University of Virginia] has unveiled the preliminary design for a new offshore wind turbine with 650-foot turbine blades. That, as its announcement points out, is twice the size of an American football field. It's also roughly the size of Trump Tower in New York.
Is there nothing that doesn't somehow tie back to XKCD?
https://xkcd.com/556/
Seriously, this is cool - but the Trump name drop is as bad as apple-baiting.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Mega installation which require mega capital which allow power companies to centralize production, control distribution, and charge consumers.
It is more efficient and less prone to failure to have distributed production with small scale wind turbines, photovoltaic, etc. on peoples' homes. But then, well, where's the profit to the established interests?
Just how quickly can these blades be secured and protected if wind storms approach? In many areas wind spouts (tornados over the water) are common events. So can these blades survive a 200 mph. wind?
I need to know how big it is in terms of Libraries of Congresses. Use standard units! That is approximately 12 LoC. Or 15 in Canadian LoC.
It's also roughly the size of Trump Tower in New York, maybe a more relevant reference point here, since we're talking scale and bluster.
That would be 1300 six inch potatoes.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
But is it as big as his hair?
And the blades spin as fast as Trump's PR team.
Imagine a stretch of open ocean, populated by a swath of wind turbines with skyscraper-sized blades
Now imagine those wind turbines getting hit by a hurricane.
Large turbines spin slower, and hence will not do any chopping. Birds can fly around it, although some won't and it will be on par with a stationary skyscrapers that kill plenty of birds too.
Generally, bigger is better in wind turbines. Power generated is proportional to swept area, more mass means cleaner power which leads to more efficiency, and yes, larger, heavier turbine blades are more survivable in weather events. Modern turbines automatically self-furl as required, in much the same way that modern helicopter blades will auto-gyro in the event of an engine failure, and the mechanisms that do this work better if they are bigger.
All that being said, weather can destroy literally anything less than planet-sized. But if weather brings down a modern windmill, the damage done by the weather event itself is likely to dwarf the damage done by the failure of the turbine and tower - unlike the failure of a large hydro dam, for example. And afterwards you can rebuild it with very few worries about the kind of large-scale, long-lasting contamination that other forms of power production (such as coal or fission) create during a weather event failure.
Really only solar has a comparably benign failure mode in weather events - basically if you get hit by a flying chunk of solar panel or wind turbine blade, that's how you can get hurt, which is why some people prefer such things to be set up well offshore or in deserts.
living life in peace
Can we use sane measuring units please?
How many stacked bananas is that?
On the contrary, this is probably the best way to make windmills bird-safe. The bigger the blades, the slower they'll move.
This does sound like something with Trump's name on it.
"Listen folks, we'll build turbines, and get the wind to pay for them."
Hahaha ... oh, wait ...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That's yooooouuuuuuuge!!!
NASA Wind Turbines approached this scale in the '80's. Unfortunately, this was a previously-unexplored area of aerodynamics for NASA, and they had mechanical stress and noise problems (including subsonics) and were all demolished. I think there was one near Vallejo, CA being taken down when I got to Pixar in '87, and one in Boone, NC, which famously rattled windows and doors.
The art has since improved. I took a ride to the top of the turbine at Grouse Mountain, that was fun! That's the only one I have heard of where you can actually get to see it from the top.
Bruce Perens.
If it is far enough out to sea, there shouldn't be to many birds in the first place.
... if a blade were the size of Trump's ego.
My gut feeling is that he gives money to whomever he thinks can do him the most good, and in New York, by and large, that's Democrats.
The RPM will be slower, but I very much doubt the tip speed will be substantially slower. I'm pretty sure the design tip speed is fundamentally a certain percentage of the wind speed, independent of the design disk diameter. That's certainly the way propellers work.
It's the tip speed that kills. As a matter of fact, larger blades are probably harder to avoid, because as they rotate they are coming from farther away.
On the contrary, this is probably the best way to make windmills bird-safe. The bigger the blades, the slower they'll move.
They are totally alien structures to a birds perception way out there in nowhere flying at night and may not even recognized as danger until it's too late.
Blades the size of the Trump ego.
FTFY.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What happened to these? Seems like they would scale up a bit easier.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The bigger these things get, especially out in a place where you can't exactly put a fence around it, the more attractive it's going to be as a Spectacular Wackadoo Assault Target. Sit in a fishing boat and lop a few dozen armor piercing RPGs at crucial structural points, and kerplop. Whether it falls apart or not, it's trashed until millions of dollars of work is done to rebuild it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm sure that coming into contact with the tip of a wind turbine would kill or seriously damage you, but there's evidence that some animals aren't actually colliding with the blades. Some post-mortem studies (of bats IIRC) showed evidence of ruptured lungs (but no blunt-force trauma), implying that the animals were killed by entering the zone of low pressure behind the leading edge.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Congress?
Preferably by the neck.
650' at 1 rpm is 45mph at the tip. More than enough to kill a bird, or because of its size a flock.
This is going to trigger my wind turbine allergy like crazy!
0mph is enough to kill a bird considering how many die just from hitting large buildings.
I'm no opponent to wind power, but the blades aren't really the stumbling block with making wind turbines larger and better. We want to build our wind turbines larger as they will rotate slower and capture more energy. The problem is transferring that energy through the hub of the turbine. More energy and slower revolution means huge torque which has to be sped up to generate electricity. Wind turbine gear boxes are still the constraining factor for improvements. Do we have any idea how these designs plan on handling this problem?
If anybody wants to read about an actual attempt to address this, here is a thesis on a system which uses wind turbines to run gravitational pistons to directly generate compressed air.
Windows 10? Slashdot beta? Comcast? Rogers? Heck, any telco or cable provider?
I'd be surprised if Trump even has a PR team. He basically just says what's on his mind (instead of the usual canned responses politicians typically give) and people either fawn over it or they go ape shit.
Strange as it seems (because you can't go thirty minutes without hearing or reading his name sometimes) his campaign is spending hardly any money, so I'm not sure what kind of a PR team he could even hire with such a paltry sum. Very well disproves the notion that money buys votes. If it did, then Hillary should win by a landslide while Trump should be dead last even among Republicans.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Wonder if something of this size will have much affect on aquatic life that depends on electrical and magnetic fields. something of this size would have to have a pretty large affect on the surrounding environment in this area.
Yes, larger turbines spin at lower rpm but the tip speed is about the same regardless of size. There are physical limitations.
Actually I didn't some checking and found a paper titled Optimal Tip Speed Ratio [PDF]. The tip speed ratio is the tip speed/wind speed. The paper says:
For grid connected wind turbines with three rotor blades the optimal wind tip speed ratio is reported as 7, with values over the range 6-8.
So the optimal tip speed depends on the wind speed but for practical reasons the tip speed may be limited to non-optimal values.
They forbid flying RC models with tiny propellers and instead install such monsters. There is more than enough generating capacity for decades to come, if we start producing electricity by saving it.
It could be further LED lamps research & development, limiting air-conditioned and heated areas in houses by the law, limiting weight of the cars, etc. We spoil our space for living by these ugly generators so that lazy people may continue to over-eat in luxury.
Seriously, a good place to put these up for testing is on the east side of Lake Michigan. Loads of wind there. And a great deal easier to deal with than coastal areas.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A windmill on this scale would to me seem to affect the wind. I mean you can't turn this big windmill without slowing down the wind. We slow down the wind, we are affecting the climate. Isn't this the thing we were trying to prevent when we started using green energy.
People have looked in to this. Compared to the total amount of wind energy wind turbines will never be more than a drop in the bucket. They may have some local effects by mixing the higher and lower elevation air but they don't have large scale effects.
There's Trump himself, but I think that would violate all sorts of laws of nature.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It has to come from somewhere. So where does the energy comes from? The wind. So the wind is now 9 mph instead of 10. No biggie, but the wind where these things are not is still ten, creating vortices from the wind shear. Also shear between the artmosphere. the ocean will affect the currents, causinfg changes in the ocean ecology.
On a small scale windmils may work fine, but once you stqart ramping up to the point of provding electricity for a small town, then you are going to have a major effect on the weather
Large turbines spin slower, and hence will not do any chopping. Birds can fly around it, although some won't and it will be on par with a stationary skyscrapers that kill plenty of birds too.
Someone doesn't understand circular motion. Small turbines with small blades spin quickly. Chop chop chop.
Large turbines with large blades spin slowly. BUT the blades are longer. The further from the centre of rotation you get the faster your velocity. I.e. Chop Chop Chop.
The birds wouldn't even see it coming. The "problem" really doesn't change.
And I use quotes because the problem is nothing compared to the death of birds caused by other human activities.
Why are these turbines sticking up into the fickle air when they should be sticking down into continuous ocean currents like the Gulf stream?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
That would be 1300 fifteen point two four centimeter potatoes.
Agreed, I don't get it. Media is doing the equivalent of watching a train wreck and cannot stop. For example, adults would have asked trump to reconsider going to the iowa debate, and let him know if he failed to, no more invites to future debates. You don't want to play now, then there are consequences, no seat at the table next time. And then all the media spent forever discussing his no show. Again, then should have ignored his absence. Seriously does anyone know what he will do when he gets in office? Has he any polices except, I'm great, I'm winning by ALOT, they aren't very good and everyone knows it, Those people (mexican, muslim, women, ???) are murderers, rapists, ...
You are full of shit for various reasons, primarily that power storage technology is improving. Also, the smart grid is going to permit automated factories to simply run when there is power available, when coupled with ever-increasing factory automation. You may not have noticed, but every economy in the world is slowing down. We're out of room for expansion, so unending growth is over. From here on out it's chasing efficiency.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You are correct that individual wind/solar farms are stochastic. However, connect enough of those stochastic systems together, diversify their sources, spread them over a wide enough area and throw in some energy storage and your individually stochastic generators become pretty deterministic.
That's exactly what I already commented on: you're using the 'smart grid' argument. I already pointed the drawbacks of it. In short, it's economically unsustainable IF you want to make sure one part of your country/continent always gets enough electricity from the other side of your country/continent, if the need appears.
Also, the only really solution to it (using windturbines as a stable energy source) is in your last part: energy storage. However, as I said in my original post, you would need systems that could store vast quantities and that for weeks (to abridge) for it to be reliable enough to become virtually 'non-stochastic'. That's far, far future music - if ever.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
That's beginning to approach the size of Trump's ego.
No, they do not, if you mean the average windmill being able to provide there vaunted maximum energy-output. Look it up: with most it's 30%.
If you mean total demand can 'mostly' be provided, than that's only true if you take the averages. And also: being stochastic means you'll never be sure of that. Even if you can say there is a 90% chance it will always be enough, you can't go to a factory or company and say: "sorry, today no electricity, it's one of those 10% days."
And a smart grid has inherent economic problems, as I've already explained in my original post.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"size of knowledge"? I think a very small black hole would suffice?
I primarily blame the education-system, though. No where in the world are there countries that oblige schools to teach and train critical and rational thought. "Historical criticism" is the closest thing I ever saw, and it was in a university. They should expand and make similar courses compulsory, starting from the lower grades. It would make people more than gullible sheep, willing to believe any politician or nonsensical emotionally driven claim.
There is a great shortage of ratio and logic being promoted in ourr societies, and that's a real shame.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
but butterflies
I think the AC is a perfect example of the green movement. We "know" that current technology is bad and we don't know that newer technology is NOT bad, so let's have no technology.
but nature produced the mountains so any such effects are natural and can be discounted. I mean, come on, Mother Nature put those mountains there because they needed to be there to produce the perfect climate for the planet.
Why not trying millions of 2-meter tall mini-turbines? Sure, wind speed at ground level isn't great, but it exists, multiply by millions... And ruin the scenery less, easier to maintain? What happens when a giant turbine breaks?
You want to maintain millions of small, electrical things in the middle of the ocean? Either you are looking to start an off shore maintenance company or you're just bat shit insane.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Based on the part of the AC's comment I didn't quote I doubt the AC is a member of the green movement. More like an anti renewable energy supporter grasping at straws to make their argument.
Wow... That's pretty good. One of those huge turbines alone would generate as much energy as a cat with a toast tied to his back, thus solving all our energy needs, forever!
Temper, temper. Not agreeing with someone is no reason to loose your manners.
You're spreading disingenuous FUD in an attempt to attack a technology that we should have been installing en masse in the 1970s, that is to say both solar and wind. You're actively doing damage with that shit, so fuck you and the horse that rode in on you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Among patriots, Trump attracts those that don't think carefully and those who don't look beneath the surface. Enthusiastic patriots are rare among prominent Democrats, so that may explain his choice to run as a Republican. Strangely, Trump is drawing substantial support from Democrats (which indicates that there is a large portion of the Democrat party disaffected from its leadership, similar to the widely published disaffection in the Republican party.)
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Birds hit buildings because the windows reflect sky. The bird sees nothing but sky, no reason to avoid the window. Windmills are white; birds can see that and at least have some chance to avoid it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm actually giving several arguments, none of which you refuted. That it's your opinion it is FUD is all good and well, but that remains your opinion (which clearly was not substantiated by any arguments), and if you can't debate in a sensible way but always feel the need to flamebait and use personal insults, it's rather clear WHO is being disingenuous.
You gave no counterarguments whatsoever - unless saying "we've been installing it en masse" is meant to be a compelling argument - but just assert (from authority?) that you are right and I am wrong. You're a typical example of a person with ideologically coloured glasses of which I spoke: nothing sensible comes out, except being derisive of all arguments against it, coupled with some personal attacks or insults. Way to go.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I see you've gotten a 'Troll' for your seasoned GP remark. Around here that means you're on the right track. There's a lot of delusion around here.
The 'smart grid' argument is a 21st century phenomenon where smart takes on the meaning that robust used to have. And the term robust has slipped too --- it used to mean engineered well enough to be truly resilient to failure, now it is often used to describe a mere excess of something, usually taken to absurd limits.
Advocates of 'smart' things center their argument on waste and inefficiency, as if we had attained some optimum level of energy production years ago and have been just pissing it all away. They'll reach into thin air (and other places) for figures like 30-50% waste and when someone presents a study that identifies a specific loss in a certain place that is say, 3-5%, unacceptable only in some perfectionist sense of engineering, those who claimed the higher figure will cry "See? I told you so!" as if their error of magnitude is unworthy of note. They will then go on to propose changes that require everyone to manufacture and purchase and deploy centrally monitored smart widgets everywhere that are all watched over by machines of loving grace to nip that 50% (oops actually less than 10%) in the bud. They're actually just saying, "We like to think about complicated things and (fragile) intricate networks, so every time you speak of increasing capacity we'll derail the discussion to talk about smart widgets and waste because no one can stop us."
Advocates of 'robust' windsolarwhatever multipliers run smack into your stochastic wall, but even though you have expressed it well it will not faze them a bit. If you point out that even at 'optimum' efficiency the yield for wind is typically 30% they'll take that unimaginably ludicrous number of turbines that would need to be built and triple it, problem solved. Your stochastic point is completely lost. There is no way to counter the idea that the wind is always blowing somewhere and these people are actually imagining giant wind turbines hopping back and forth across the continent trailing transmission umbilici behind to gather in throngs where the wind is the strongest. Or easier still, simply imagine them as having been built there. They saw a wind map one day and imagined that's the way it 'is' and do not recall the continent ever being under a stable high pressure dome for weeks with generally light and variable winds. Not one of them would be willing to gamble their own lives on the bet that there will be wind on any day in any location, yet they'll do their small part to drive society, by small degrees, to a point where it is hanging on a desperate and stupid gamble.
When someone mentions 'storage' technology it should be whispered, with the eyes gazing heavenward to beg forgiveness. For these folks know or care little of the devastating ecological horrors they are proposing. By going with that gigajoule-level storage paradigm to somehow salvage what is an (already) ridiculous idea of replacing few 1-10GW plants with many intermittent geographically dispersed 3-50MW sources... the storage solution for this level of energy is freaklishly and chemically insane. Storage is where the most bizarre bedfellows emerge from the shadows. They imagine a few lithium batteries the size of skyscrapers that rendered large areas (in other countries) uninhabitable in their manufacture, or (if they're more practical) great lakes of acid and lead plates. Of course if you press them on the matter they won't admit to imagining any of those things. Instead they are thinking of the little safe and friendly batteries in their cellphones and cars gently and lovingly encased in plastic, maybe a little bigger, connected by enough copper wire to render large areas (in other countries) into desolate open pit mines. Or taking temporary refuge from reality altogether --- imagin
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
CONFESSIONS OF A SLASHDOT ENERGY AND LFTR FANBOI
Updated for 2016! All original unless noted! Browse! Engage! Plagiarize!
It's fun to discuss nuclear energy on Slashdot... A brief history of nuclear energy fear in these United States... You should fear everything besides nuclear energy... Solar drives California towards cannibalism, or your money back... There's a fire, and people pushing intermittent sources are blocking the exits... Hiding wonders of the modern world from the kids...Some energy priorities... 2016: The Year in energy... Meet the folks of TBA, a city willing to store spent nuclear fuel... Nothing is as patriotic as mining... A move to LFTR may be the only way to preserve modern society in the face of disaster (volcanism, Maunder minimum)... Can the grid 'black-start' after a disaster?... Sometimes you just have to point things out... some confuse Weinberg's '300 year best-fit for waste' two fluid design for other single fluid designs... or using solid fuel Thorium, which is pointless so long as uranium is available... yes it's full of dangerous glop, but it is useful and happy glop... yes, I think a LFTR could be developed and built within $4B... every path to biofuels leads to scorched-earth disaster, Thorium energy gives us the surplus to generate synfuels... Decommissionining of nuclear plants promotes an ugly 'vulture culture'... One way to do it: ThorCon, a thorium burner not breeder... Aside from your own yard or roof, solar and wind are losers... With LFTR surplus we could begin making diesel and fertilizer... Do it for the children... No-Plan-Stan tries to derail another discussion about Thorium... EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END COOKIES (serves 7 billion)... AND YOU MY FRIEND -- you would look especially good in Space ... To summarize most energy threads on Slashdot... Finally! Someone who feels personally threatened by solar net-metering!...
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Some little know facts: when the power of a windturbine is mentioned, it does NOT mean that it actually delivers that power. For instance, if it says "This is a 8MW windmill that can support 100000 households...that is simply a lie, in a de facto way. The vast majority only deliver ONE THIRD of their pretended maximum power (a lot even less).
That is a matter of math, or not? Either you fix the wrong name plate, or you fix the place where you place them. I mean: if a wind turbine is rated to yield 8MW power at a wind speed of 30feet/sec but you put it on a place where that speed is rarely reached or exceeded, it can't be the wind mills fault.
Point is a 8MW wind mil will certainly yield the 8MW if it is placed at a place where the conditions are right. Most OFFSHORE plants (and that is what we are talking about) yield more than the rated power as the it is easy to find spots where the long term over the year wind speed is above the one used for the rating.
It would be reasonable to compare the costs with the ACTUAL power being delivered, thus... but you *never* see that happen on any pro-green website or fancamp.
The costs are calculated quite different than you think. A guy pacing a wind farm somewhere surely knows how much energy he can expect over the year and if an investment makes sense.
I know the theory the greens always come up with, aka the super-smart all-encompassing grid, where every windmill is connected to everything else, and electricity flows from one end of the continent to the other. But frankly, that's just a pipedream. That's why - another little detail most of the pro-camp seem to forget - is that for every windmill park, there NEEDS to be a classical plant (on gas, oil or coal) to provide backup
That is wrong. If that was the case you would need for every classical plant a classical back up plant, too. Obviously, because of the continent wide grids, wind plants can back up each other just as classical plants back up each other.
I stop here with debunking your bullshit.
Perhaps you should simply read about the stuff instead of leaning back on your couch and think "hm, it can only work this way!"? Unfortunately basically every statement you make here (including arguments( is wrong.
The truth is, if one REALLY wants to get a stable alternative, one is better off with geothermal and water(dam) and maybe tidal-wave derived energy sources.
That are nice alternatives.
At least they are not as much stochastic in nature.
Solar and wind are not stochastic. Or weather reports would be greatly unreliable.
Solar and wind will NEVER be able to fill that hole, unless one can store all the electricity for at least several weeks worth (so that even long periods of shortages don't need any backup anymore).
So, wou want to tell me someone is so idiotic that he is placing a wind plant (not a single wind mill, if we talk about plants we mean a few hundred) at a place where he can expect no wind for a week or longer?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"That is a matter of math, or not? Either you fix the wrong name plate, or you fix the place where you place them. I mean: if a wind turbine is rated to yield 8MW power at a wind speed of 30feet/sec but you put it on a place where that speed is rarely reached or exceeded, it can't be the wind mills fault."
Apparently, it happens often enough. One can put the blame on everyone else, the fact remains that the actual energy most windmills deliver are de facto a lot less than promised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
note that the situation won't improve, since the first windmill-parks are obviously going to be build in the best wind-covered places. Additional ones will get *less* good spots, since the best ones are already taken. So, it's not that they can't technically possibly get to their vaunted maximum, it's that they just don't, in practise. This relates to the stochastic nature of wind.
Changing the 'nameplate' to a more realistic output would indeed solve that part...well: why, then, do green sites/blogs/groups never do that? Note that this would also mean that, when they compare 100 windmills of 8MW to a nuclear plant of 800 MW, they're actually NOT using an adequate comparison, since they would need, in fact, *300* windmills for that, thus, with triple the price - and still being stochastic in nature. It's math, yes. So why does the pro-camp not apply it correctly?
"The costs are calculated quite different than you think. A guy pacing a wind farm somewhere surely knows how much energy he can expect over the year and if an investment makes sense."
Wrong. You may not be aware of this, but wind-energy is *heavily* subsidies by the state, in most countries. This, in turn, means the actually efficiency DOES NOT (or at least, far less) matter, since they don't earn directly from the cost/benefit that it delivers, but by being subsidized. As long as you can make profit with the subsidies, it doesn't really matter *how* efficient it is. The taxpayers pays for it anyway. And that's also the reason why, in countries that stop with all those huge subsidies, a lot of those wind-mill companies close doors and can't survive. In short, the whole wind-energy industrial complex is a heavily subsidised one, which only survives thanks to those subsidies (aka, money that was first derived FROM the economy, thus).
"That is wrong. If that was the case you would need for every classical plant a classical back up plant, too."
?
What ARE you talking about? A gas-powered plant does not need a backup, because it's not stochastic in nature. It has a constant, well-defined amount of energy (gas) that it can use. It can do load-balancing. Thus, it can level out the peaks and valleys of demand and supply (of energy) on short notice.
The fact you say is wrong, simply indicates you are totally unaware of the facts. They do. It's not surprising you don't know, because many like you just don't research things, but repeat what others (greens) say (and of course, they'll always ommit things that speak unfavourable of it). Here, let me give you a link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...
Please read up before claiming something is wrong out of hand.
"Obviously, because of the continent wide grids, wind plants can back up each other just as classical plants back up each other."
No, they can't. Because every windfarm is stochastic in nature, not just your own. This means you're basically playing statistical roulette, and *hope* it will *ALWAYS* be enough. And: WHAT 'continent wide grid'? Do you have any idea what trillions that would cost?
"I stop here with debunking your bullshit."
No, please continue, since we were just coming to the good part. As you can see - I've provided links this time - it's YOU who are
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
ote that the situation won't improve, since the first windmill-parks are obviously going to be build in the best wind-covered places.
No they are not. They are placed where ever the "owner" of the windmills got "subsidices", land, a connection to the grid etc.
It is a no brainer that if the yield is less than "promised" that obviously the windmill is not placed at an optimal place.
randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
Exactly. And that is what wind is not. You should really stop spreading such nonsense.
What ARE you talking about? A gas-powered plant does not need a backup, because it's not stochastic in nature. It has a constant, well-defined amount of energy (gas) that it can use. It can do load-balancing. Thus, it can level out the peaks and valleys of demand and supply (of energy) on short notice.
And like any wind plant: it can fail, hence it needs a back up. And in fact it has a back up. About an additional 10% - 15% of the total energy your grid is producing is available in "back up plants" that get spun up if one of the normal plants fail, or goes into maintenance. And that is enough for all your wind plants, too. So you don't need "additional" back up plants for your wind plants. Especially if you consider that in countries that are bigger than yours basically only one of a few dozen wind plants is producing low at a certain time. See below.
You're just not getting it. It's a matter of probability. Large weather fronts can occur, that span vast area's, and give wind-poor conditions for days on end. In my own country, about 20 days a year are wind-still (even more than wind-poor, thus). Since it's due to a weather front, it can take several days in a row. ... sorry. No wind, or low wind, you have in the center of a high pressure area or low pressure area, not at the "weather front".
The one who is not getting it, is you. E.g. "weather front"
If your country is so small that it can be completely without wind, then obviously your country should not switch much of its production to wind. Very simple concept. However: that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Denmark e.g. is a very small country. So is Portugal, albeit bigger. They both are approaching 50% production of energy by wind. Both countries are placed at good wind positions and are big enough that they never can have zero wind.
Also, you don't know much about wind. The article is about windmills that have a diameter of 1300 feet. That is 430m. So the axis of the wind mill likely 400m in the hight or even higher. Even if you feel zero wind on the ground, you have likely a significant wind up there.
But the same inherent problem remains: it STILL remains a probabilistic matter. And that's because it's a stochastic system. I'm not understanding why you guys don't get that. :D ... then you are forced to learn about weather more than you need to figure that your idea about "stochastic wind" is simply: idiotic.
Because you are wrong
Go read a book about weather, especially coastal weather. Or make a air pilot license or a sailing license
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm sorry, but that's just BS.
Did you even READ the links I gave you?
And the weather CAN NOT be predicted precisely. There is no forecasts that can accurately predict with 100% certainty where and how much and at what time the wind will blow. It's absurd to even suggest otherwise, and hints that you really do not understand what you're talking about. In fact, it demonstrate you didn't even do the trouble of reading the links I gave, which substantiate what I say.
If you want to keep claiming the opposite, please provide me with a link where it is substantiated that one can do such a thing. You can't, period. And that's because it's impossible, BECAUSE it's stochastic in nature. Whether forecasts are ALWAYS approximations; they are the best (in a statistical way) predictions computer-simulations can offer. It's a reliance on statistics, thus (and now look again on the definition of stochastic). Here you have another link: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/r...
Please educate yourself. It's embarrassing to look at arguments that miss even the most basic of knowledge on the subject.
Also... about the gas/coal backups for windmill-parks: this was not a suggestion or prediction, it is simply a fact: there ARE gas/coal backups for all those windmills, just *because* they are stochastic and unpredictable. Again: did you even bother to read the pages I linked to? It's explicitly mentioned there. Whether you like it or want it or not, it IS done that way. Here, I'll give you another link: http://www.aweo.org/windbackup... . What, exactly, do you not understand about it? Or are you being wilfully obtuse?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Did you even READ the links I gave you?
No I did not. As I likely know more about the stuff as you can find links.
There is no forecasts that can accurately predict with 100% certainty where and how much and at what time the wind will blow.
100% accuracy is not needed.
Where the wind blows is not needed. You only need to know the wind at the plants.
When the wind blows is not needed, you only need to know the next couple of quarter hours, up to 4 hours if you are keen.
E.g. http://windguru.cz/ or http://windfinder.com/ power companies use even more specialized wind prognosis services.
It's absurd to even suggest otherwise, and hints that you really do not understand what you're talking about. No t is not absurd. As I was involved in writing the software used for that stuff in Europe.
Whether forecasts are ALWAYS approximations; they are the best (in a statistical way) That does not make the weather stochastic
Also... about the gas/coal backups for windmill-parks: this was not a suggestion or prediction, it is simply a fact: No it is ot a fact, it is simply wrong
there ARE gas/coal backups for all those windmills, just *because* they are stochastic and unpredictable. no there are not. And get it meanwhile: they are neither stochastic nor not predictable. And even if they where: it would not make a back up plant necessary. Your argumentation is bar of any logic.
The link you give is 12 years old and what is written in it, does not interest me, what exactly is it that you don't understand about that? If that link claims a wind plant needs a back up plant: then it is wrong. The link talks about 5% wind power or something ... Denmark now has continuously on average every year over 40% of its power produced by wind. That link is completely irrelevant, and likely never was.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Did you even READ the links I gave you?
No I did not."
"what is written in it, does not interest me"
I think that sums things up quite nicely, indeed. Basically, you don't want to educate yourself - throwing in an appeal to authority at that (always a weak sign), nor are you interested in any arguments that don't stroke with your biased vision.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I think that sums things up quite nicely, indeed. Basically, you don't want to educate yourself
Links with wrong content don't educate anyone, quite easy to see at your lack of knowledge regarding the topic.
Perhaps you should read the links you post and grasp the content, too?
E.g. you missed my point that the latest link you posted is about the year 2005, and even the stuff written there was wrong at that time already.
How can you base any reasonable discussion regarding wind energy in the year 2016 on an article wrongly describing the year 2005?
I'm tired of reading such links, so I glance over them and as soon as I see 3 wrongs, usually in the first 5 sentences, I stop reading them.
If you saw an appeal to authority, I please copy paste it, I would like to learn what that is (hint: according to the definition of Wikipedia: I made no such appeal ... why would I?)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You forget to mention that, apart from your last two, that didn't were relevant to the topic at hand, you posted NO links at all , let alone 'more recent' ones, that would contradict what is said in those other links.
One of the links was to a scientific paper, btw, clearly indicating the weather is a stochastic phenomenon. Your only response to it is "can't be bothered to read it, since I know it better then every one else". Or "aw, it's 10 years old, it's SO passé". Really? That's your counterargument? You do realise it's not based on refuting anything content-wise that is said in there, nor on arguments, only on your own assertion "it's not true, because I say so". Alas, not to burst your ego-bubble, but that's not a valid argument. If you realise this, then please provide your own links to recent scientific papers which claim it's NOT stochastic, as you keep claiming erroneously. You can't. You know it, and I know it. Give me your links to recent sites where it's said windturbines don't need any backup anymore these days from gas/oil/coal plants anymore. You can't. We both know it. And that's why, basically, you are just trolling, and baiting with all the 'maybe you should grasp the content'. I grasp it very well, and I also grasp you didn't and can not offer ANY proof of what you claim. And that's because you're full of bull.
If anything should be tiring, it's reactions like yours, who are clearly trollish in nature. If you didn't want to debate things based on facts and valid arguments, but just wanted to be an annoying idiot, you should have said so from the start. And if you do, then please substantiate your claims, preferably with more recent links, since you complain about older data.
I'll ask you again: put up or shut up. Show me a paper that explicitly claims the weather is NOT stochastic. Show me a reliable site where it's demonstrated windturbines do NOT need any backup anymore to compensate for load balancing.
"No I did not. As I likely know more about the stuff as you can find links." ---> appeal to authority. Are you a scientist with expertise on stochastic systems? Highly doubtful. And certainly with a self-referencing which can not be checked, it's completely worthless as an argument.
But, ok, I'm broad-minded; if you can actually prove you're such an expert on the domain in question, I'll count it as an argument with some worth. Please provide actual proof that you're such an expert as you self-profess to be. For instance, give a link to your professional career which can be crossed checked that you are in fact, that person.
If you do not want to, please realise, that then, the argument is completely worthless, just as anything said out of 'authority' or any other claims that you did not substantiate. You complain about my sources and claim I'm wrong, because you said so. You can turn it as you want, but that is what your posts boil down to. You provided nothing to back your claims up, nor did you deliver any proof of your expertise. So, what is left? Be honest.
Nothing, indeed.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Why should I post links? Why should I search links that are worded in a simple way that you understand and contain common knowledge? Ever realized how hard it is to find links with common knowledge? People learn that stuff in school, from books. Hardly anyone is writing articles in the web about it. Hence, if you are interested in wind power, it is much better you google for your self :D
One of the links was to a scientific paper, btw, clearly indicating the weather is a stochastic phenomenon.
Certainly not on a level where it is relevant for wind power. And: no idea if you typoed: does the paper talk about weather or wind? Hu? Slight but important difference.
Or "aw, it's 10 years old, it's SO passé". Really? Yes. That link was already _wrong_ when it contents was written. And the reality we have right now clearly proves it: so we have a ten year old article/link with a prognosis for our time and: our time does not match that prognosis, not even close. Hence: the content or the conclusions made in that article are wrong. So my argument: that link is outdated by 10 years is a perfect valid argument. And even worse: you hanging on that link and thinking what is mentioned in it is in any way relevant shows: you are not interested in learning anything.
"No I did not. As I likely know more about the stuff as you can find links." ---%gt; appeal to authority. ;D pffft. Why should I be? Learn to read? I'm a computer scientist who worked 10 years for power companies, mainly in renewables and prognosis software and plant (fleet) planning/scheduling and grid schedules. Oh: and I'm a sailor. And oh: 1/4th of sailing education is weather! Oh: and basic weather stuff you learn in school, oooooops! So it is pretty clear: wind is not stochastic. At least not on a level that is relevant for power production. So: I know how to predict wind, I know how power plant operators schedule their plants around wind plants. I know wind plants, their behaviour etc. Do you know anything of those three topics? No! But you feel qualified to quote links about which you have no education to judge if they are relevant or not?!?
No it is not. It perhaps was badly worded.
Are you a scientist with expertise on stochastic systems? No I'm not
You provided nothing to back your claims up, nor did you deliver any proof of your expertise. ... and hence realized: I'm an expert on this topic.
Learn to read: I gave you dozens of concrete physically explanations where you were wrong. You simply ignored them all. You could have checked them
The "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy if the authority in question: a) does not exist, b) is an authority about something else, c) the person claimed to be one (might the speaker or someone else) is none.
Simply pointing out that you have the "knowledge" and that you "are an authority" does not make it a fallacy. Or do you doubt a judge in court has the authority to convict you, just because some speaker in the court says: "all raise for his Honour Judge Smith?"? Or do you doubt he has that authority when he introduces him as Mr. Smith and after some talks you tell him about your job and then he tells you abut his job?
Regarding stochastic and weather/wind ... perhaps you meant to write "chaotic"? What the difference between stochastic and chaotic is, is left for you to figure ;D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I note you still did not provided a single link or reference to substantiate any of your claims. Be it recent or 'old' data. Ergo, your assertions and claims are derived from self-asserted authority (or not even that, apparently), without anything to back it up... and are thus pretty worthless in any rational debate.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I gave you two links: windfinder.com and windguru.cz ... if you are to dumb to open them, that is your problem.
The rest of your post is insulting ... as I pointed out already: I don't post you links to stuff you should have learned in school. And I don't get payed to find links that debunk the links you find. If you are so stupid that you believe the links you find are "true" then this is your problem.
Hint: open http://www.windguru.cz/ enter your location, or a location that interests you, make a screen shot every day or every other day, and then compare the forecast of a day in "future" and how that forecast changes from day to day, until that day is actually reached.
Then you see: Im right. You are wrong.
However, as you likely either did not check any of the two links or don't comprehend what they show ... your problem. Stay uneducated ... wasn't that the insult towards me you used last time?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, and contrary to you, I *did* do the trouble of reading them. Only, they pertain no confirmation of your claim that it's not stochastic, nor does it substantiate your assertion that no backup is needed anymore from classical plants.
And don't complain about my post being insulting if you start being insulting in the first place, even though you then say 'maybe I worded it wrongly'. I'm a fervent proponent of free speech, but also of reciprocity, so don't start complaining you get the same treatment as you give others. "I stop here with debunking your bullshit." is where you started with language which you already should have known it was not going to be conductive of having an amicable discussion. Oh, don't tell me: in your opinion, it was merely stating an obvious fact, no doubt. Well, in reciprocity, I'm only saying an equally obvious fact. And thus:
In all honesty, you're an arrogant twit, and I think you know it. Or maybe not, with your bloated ego, but at least others know it too, seen your response(s) and the reactions you get from others in other threads. The one that is uneducated is you, AND you refuse to learn and don't even try to read anything that contradicts your set views, all in the absolute certainty that you know it best, and all the rest not, that you are an expert determining what is stochastic or not, because you claim to program and are a sailor (while questioning 'why should I be an expert in stochastic systems' when the fallacy of speaking from authority is *exactly* the fact that people that are NOT experts on the subjects act as if they do).
In short, you STILL did not provide any link that substantiates your claim about the weather not being stochastic, NOR that windmills don't need any back up anymore. Not surprising, because those assertions are untrue. I provided you the links to substantiate MY claims on the matter (one of which was to a scientific paper), but then you complain it's 'old data', while YOU didn't even give ANY data, nor provide links to papers that would indicate why the old data would be wrong. How very consistent...
You simply fail to grasp the basics of any rational debate, namely that your claims and arguments need to be substantiated, or they're basically worthless and don't amount to anything (the same is true for assertions based on your own expertise without giving proof of that expertise).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well,
then please try to explain on a base of physics, why I need back up plants for wind plants if I'm e.g running a country like Denmark or Portugal (both quite small), or Germany or France, both quite large.
Oh, you can't explain it, because you don't know how wind works, how bigger weather situations work, how grids work etc.
I can not provide links showing that weather is not stochastic How dumb are you? Which scientist would write stuff and put things up on the internet about stuff that that does not exist?
If you would try understand at least one sentence I wrote, you meanwhile had realized: wind can not be stochastic. Sorry, in what fucking area of the world do you live that you believe such a nonsense? Why did you not learn basic weather behavior in school? No sane person able to write and use a browser can believe what you believe or still believe it after dozens of people told you now, that you are wrong?
Why are you asking about links that 'prove' that unicorns don't exist, is beyond me. Why you don't grasp that people are not writing about the 'non existence' of unicorns, is beyond me, too.
You simply fail to grasp the basics of any rational debate, namely that your claims and arguments need to be substantiated, or they're basically worthless and don't amount to anything (the same is true for assertions based on your own expertise without giving proof of that expertise). ... just as I pointed out in a few posts back: you won't be able to verify if that judge in the court is a real judge. Why you want me to provide 'special proof' is beyond me.
A rational debate is firstly based on logic, not on proofs. You fail to follow basic logic. It is not me who is failing to provide 'anti' proves. Why you want me to give proof of experience is beyond me. You won't be able to verify my proves anyway
But good luck in finding the 'back up coal plants' Denmark is hiding somewhere to back up its 40% wind power production (*facepalm*) ... Germanys for that matter ;)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No.
I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.
So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.
In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.
your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.
And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:
The 'hidden' coal plants are not hidden at all - if you bother to do some basic research before claiming something, that is. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). And of course they also have gas-fired power stations too. For the necessity of Denmark to rely on gasturbines/plants as backup: https://carboncounter.wordpres...
and for Germany: https://www.dissentmagazine.or... and https://www.bcgperspectives.co...
I'll even give the quote:
"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."
Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.
And if you're still not convinced: http://energytransition.de/201...
I'll give you the relevant quote yet again:
"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."
Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Erm ... links from "wordpress"? You know that this is a "blog site"?
Simple fact you seem not to know: in Germany we are dismantling coal plants continuously. Because they can not compete on the market with wind.
If every wind plant needed a coal plant to back it up, we would not do it.
Good luck with your crusade, though ...
Especially your last paragraph is so laughable :D
As a matter of fact: And if you're still not convinced ... which part of I work in that business and know basically everything about it and you don't (neither work nor know anything) did you not get or grasp yet? How do you want to "convince" a surgeon that he is doing his surgery wrong when he in fact is the surgeon and you are, frankly, only: a moron?
The last link ... did you actually read it? I relink it for you: http://energytransition.de/201...
Why are people so dumb, brain dead idiotic, that they google for something, read the first introducing paragraph (which is worded in a rhetorical question phrase) and then post it as proof of their idiotic misunderstandings is beyond me. If you would have had the patience to read that link, I post it again: http://energytransition.de/201... you had figured: wow, angel'o'sphere is right. All what he is saying is plainly written in that article.
Idiot. And please don't blame me: you dug out that link.
Last paragraph, as you are likely not going to read your own link:
Though this option seems the best in terms of technology, it faces a financial challenge: wholesale power prices are now so low on the power exchange that investments in additional generating capacity would not be profitable. Not only are Germanyâ(TM)s four biggest power firms abandoning plans to set up new gas turbines; there have also been rumors that some of the existing turbines might be taken off-line because they are no longer running for enough hours per year.
So, in your words: Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are _not_ needed as backup. Fixed that for you. It is clearly stated in the last link of yours that all the things you claimed in this /. story: are wrong. And you are even to stupid to realize that because you did not read the link but copy/pasted random links you found via google without reading them: IDIOT!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You are truly an idiot, who apparently can't even read comprehensively. Are you really THAT daft? Or are you wilfully obtuse?
Do you NOT comprehend they are shutting those down because it makes no ECONOMIC sense for those companies, and that the German state is now considering giving subsidies to those gas-fired plants BECAUSE they are needed!? I've EXPLICITLY said so in my last post, exactly to exclude the possibility you would - again - (mis)interpret it for your own sake. apparently, to no avail, because you still didn't comprehend it. READ MY LAST PARAGRAPH, slacker, and you would have known that I read that last paragraph AND then you wouldn't have made an even bigger fool of yourself. Instead, now your claiming I didn't read it, while I repeated it almost verbatim. FAIL. The bigger irony now being, that you just proved you re the brain dead idiot who doesn't even read or can't comprehend what is written and just comes up with the first thing that pops up in his mind and spouting it around.
And once again, I note you didn't provide even one relevant single link to substantiate YOUR claims, once again, while, again, deriding mine. Yes, sure, because no substantiation and just saying it as a know-all proves the argument so much better, no doubt.
You're so stupid it hurts my eyes. You're making an 'argument' that now bites you back in the ass, but worse, you have clearly not understood what they're saying here - at all. You think that because they close those plants because they're not economical viable anymore, that this means they are not needed anymore. So much for your vaunted 'logic'. Delicious irony indeed.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---