TX: all our wind turbines are obsolete

[philip964]

https://www.brookes.ac.uk/about-brookes ... ind-farms/

Say the English.

[Paladin]

That's interesting ... but so far only a computer simulation. Time will tell

[SigM4]

I would guess that these models wouldn’t have to rotate to face the wind like the more traditional units.

As to being obsolete, it’s all part of the process. It was/is only a matter of time before newer and better technology replaces those already in the field.

[flechero]

As to being obsolete, it’s all part of the process. It was/is only a matter of time before newer and better technology replaces those already in the field.

But is the expense of replacement worth it for a possible 15% efficiency gain? I'd think not... run em' until they burn up! Then upgrade to the new kind.

[Syntyr]

Out in West Texas they really don't need to turn because the wind comes from two directions north and south across I10. Just 15 to 20 mph seems to get those behemoths moving. The problem I have is every time I go by them, 6 to 7 times a year, about 60% are not moving. Seems random like they are turned off or locked down. There will be six in a row and it's almost like every other one is not running.

private image upload

[ELB]

As far as I can tell Texas has the only wind farm that even comes close to actually working, meaning it provides electricity at some reasonable cost that can be transported to where it's needed -- but I also believe that rests on some huge government subsidies that when factored in blow up the "reasonable cost" part.

We need more nukes, less turbines.

[Paladin]

2020 Levelised costs of generating electricity (LCOE) produced jointly every five years by the International Energy (IEA) and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA):

report

Nuclear is certainly the most cost efficient, but in the best cases onshore wind is competitive.

[philip964]

There is no free lunch.

My view wind turbines would slow the earth’s rotation.

Ugly.

Kill birds.

And a recycling issue.

Nuke is by far the cheapest. But it has “issues”.

Fusion, let’s make it happen.

[Paladin]

While I disagree with the reports terminology (i.e. assumption that methane, a gas common throughout the solar system, is "fossil" fuel), and the results are dependent on certain assumptions, the conclusions are noteworthy:

The key insight from this 2020 edition is that the levelised costs of electricity generation of low- carbon generation technologies are falling and are increasingly below the costs of conventional fossil fuel generation. Renewable energy costs have continued to decrease in recent years. With the assumed moderate emission costs of USD 30/tCO2 their costs are now competitive, in LCOE terms, with dispatchable fossil fuel-based electricity generation in many countries.2 In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025. Although costs vary strongly from country to country, this is true for a majority of countries (10 out of 14). Also solar PV, if deployed at large scales and under favourable climatic conditions, can be very cost competitive....Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries.

[Syntyr]

There is no free lunch.

My view wind turbines would slow the earth’s rotation.

Ugly.

Kill birds.

And a recycling issue.

Nuke is by far the cheapest. But it has “issues”.

Fusion, let’s make it happen.

May I have a portable Tokamak for my backyard?

The problem with wind is variability and the grid cannot tolerate variability. The amount of wind energy input into the grid must be backed up with 90 of the wind farm’s input with conventional generation. The grid can’t handle constant up and down. The back up has to be there.

[srothstein]

There is no free lunch.

My view wind turbines would slow the earth’s rotation.

Ugly.

Kill birds.

And a recycling issue.

Nuke is by far the cheapest. But it has “issues”.

Fusion, let’s make it happen.

May I have a portable Tokamak for my backyard?

The problem with wind is variability and the grid cannot tolerate variability. The amount of wind energy input into the grid must be backed up with 90 of the wind farm’s input with conventional generation. The grid can’t handle constant up and down. The back up has to be there.

I am waiting for the Mr. Fusion conversion kits to hit the market.

[RHenriksen]

But is the expense of replacement worth it for a possible 15% efficiency gain? I'd think not... run em' until they burn up! Then upgrade to the new kind.

The 15% efficiency gain was when you deploy these vertical mills in pairs, so they play off each other. 15% efficiency gain over deploying them solo.

*Not* a 15% gain over previous gen designs.

[Soccerdad1995]

There is no free lunch.

My view wind turbines would slow the earth’s rotation.

Ugly.

Kill birds.

And a recycling issue.

Nuke is by far the cheapest. But it has “issues”.

Fusion, let’s make it happen.

Hmmm. If a nuclear fission accident is bad, I'd hate to see a nuclear fusion accident.

[talltex]

As to being obsolete, it’s all part of the process. It was/is only a matter of time before newer and better technology replaces those already in the field.

But is the expense of replacement worth it for a possible 15% efficiency gain? I'd think not... run em' until they burn up! Then upgrade to the new kind.

The factor that is never brought up is the cost to "decommission" the wind turbines at the end of life cycle. When they first started building wind farms, they said the life expectancy of the turbines was 30 years. It now is being downgraded to 20-22 years - almost a 1/3 reduction. The estimated cost to remove the old units ranges from $250K to $450K for EACH unit. That still leaves 2500 to 3000 TONS of concrete and 900 tons of steel reinforcement, and 45 tons of plastic in the ground for the obsolete base -- which is there forever. The profitability of the turbines is based on a combination of federal and state tax abatements and subsidies. They can't show a profit unless they don't have to pay the same property taxes as other businesses. All of the units that are already in existence will not be rebuilt/replaced when they have reached the end of their lifespan unless they continue to get that tax abatement. If they are told they will not get it, then they will certainly not spend the money to take them down, and will walk away and leave the landowners who leased the land to them to deal with them. What landowner is going to be able to come up with several million dollars to have even 5 or 6 of them taken down on their property when that happens? The company that owns them will simply file a bankruptcy petition and walk away if they cannot operate them profitably in the future.
Our County has just blocked them after we discovered they had already had agents operating in the area who had leased up over 2000 acres for building sites and right of ways without notifying any County officials. At the urging of individuals and City Councils, that passed resolutions requesting the County Commissioners to deny tax abatements, it looks like they will not pursue the issue. In addition to the monetary cost to the County, the land values in Counties with scenic landscapes is greatly impacted. The Turbine companies like areas with lots of hills and ridges to place the turbines where they will catch more wind. Those hills and ridges are the places that most people moving into those area want to build their homes because of the scenic views.

[The Annoyed Man]

A few weeks ago, I ran across this video from the Practical Engineering YouTube channel, on the failure of the Texas power grid this winter. He appears to address the issue free of any particular ideology, and sticks merely to the facts of what happened and an engineering analysis of it. It’s instructive.



At 5min/25sec or so, he begins explaining the timeline and why the failure happened. At 7min/30sec, there’s a brief discussion of what percentages of Texas's power come from each type of generation source, and how various failures in delivery contributed to the total collapse. (I don’t really give a cup of warm spit about how California or Massachusetts allocate theirs.) It was instructive to me to see that only something like 4.7% of Ercot's generation is nuclear. More than 3/4 of it is from wind and natural gas, with wind providing 28.8% and natural gas 47.5% respectively of our generation capacity.

It’s true that nobody wants a nuke plant in their back yard, but decommissioning them without replacing them is extremely short sighted. If we continue to rely on what has proven to be UNreliable wind energy and natural gas delivery, then we can only continue to look forward to more future grid collapse events due to extremes of weather—particularly as our population grows with people moving in from more badly governed states.

Building nuclear plants does come with its own set of problems, but it seems to me that nuclear is the most cost efficient AND reliable energy delivery there is….and we need to exploit that.