The scam continues: Why wind turbines are being re-powered at 10-years

[Ws6]

Speaking of that… my wife posted in our family group chat this, and you can see my response… but I’m using a Husqvarna 2 stroke

The zero turn is also really good at taking out knee height trees
View attachment 149144
View attachment 149143

Knee high? I've taken down trees 2" dia with mine. 60" eXmark with a 25hp Kawasaki.

 

[Skippy722]

Knee high? I've taken down trees 2" dia with mine. 60" eXmark with a 25hp Kawasaki.

Well…. They only got planted last year lol

 

[MolaKule]

Yes, there are all kinds of alternative battery technologies being floated right now but the only one being invested in at scale is lithium, which is extremely expensive. We'll see how these other techs pan out over the next few years.

The problem with most storage is that it's hours of capacity to deal with demand that can often be weeks in duration (wind lulls; dunkelflaute) or even seasonal. Wind in many locations is extremely seasonal with peak performance in the spring and fall and vanishing during cold snaps and during the summer. You aren't solving that with a few hours of storage.

On top of that, storage adds significantly to the round-trip cost, particularly as you scale it, because this stuff doesn't generate anything and has considerable CAPEX and is also lossy. Nobody is building it for free, so ratepayers are ultimately on the hook.

Gravity batteries are a joke. PHES is quite viable (we have several successful examples like Racoon Mountain) but it's also expensive and limited in capacity. It's fine to be used for peaking capacity replacement when paired to firm sources but it's not economically (nor logistically I suspect) doing so for sources that are gone for days or weeks.

Potential energy has many forms, such as nuclear, batteries, fossil fuels, etc. The best battery IMHO is that contained in the atom. The next viable batteries are fossil fuels in terms of liquid fuels and gaseous products.

Both nuclear and fossil fuels have the highest energy densities which many seem to forget.

Until practical Fusion energy appears, those improved Fission reactors, especially the distributed and breeder types, are the best bet for satisfying the increased electrical energy demands.

 

[OVERKILL]

Potential energy has many forms, such as nuclear, batteries, fossil fuels, etc. The best battery IMHO is that contained in the atom. The next viable batteries are fossil fuels in terms of liquid fuels and gaseous products.

Both nuclear and fossil fuels have the highest energy densities which many seem to forget.

Until practical Fusion energy appears, those improved Fission reactors, especially the distributed and breeder types, are the best bet for satisfying the increased electrical energy demands.

Yup, the amount of energy in a single fuel pellet is staggering.

 

[4WD]

We know which is best at spinning up GE, P&W, and RR …
then take you higher !

 

[MolaKule]

I drive past this wind farm at least every year. I wondered why they were replacing the blades and heads after such a short amount of time. It didn't make sense. Now I see why.

The lifetimes of the mechanical components were predicted to be 20 years, but there have been various failures from 2 to 10 years.

Me thinks the analysis of the gears, bearings, blades, and hubs was way too optimistic and many designs were rushed off to the field without comprehensive analyses.

All kinds of wind turbine lubricants of various base oil types have been tried and so far a few types have been found to be stable. But it is not so much a problem with the lubricants and the additives as it is the metallurgical failures, due mostly to 3-D vibration modes that are encountered stressing the mechanical components.

But those failures are with land-based turbines.

Now, put them out to sea and watch multiple corrosion problems arise.

 

[4WD]

The lifetimes of the mechanical components were predicted to be 20 years, but there have been various failures from 2 to 10 years.

Me thinks the analysis of the gears, bearings, blades, and hubs was way too optimistic and many designs were rushed off to the field without comprehensive analyses.

All kinds of wind turbine lubricants of various base oil types have been tried and so far a few types have been found to be stable. But it is not so much a problem with the lubricants and the additives as it is the metallurgical failures, due mostly to 3-D vibration modes that are encountered stressing the mechanical components.

But those failures are with land-based turbines.

Now, put them out to sea and watch multiple corrosion problems arise.

Yep - SCC and all …

 

[JHZR2]

Regarding global warming all we need is China to get onboard. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.

Spot on!

 

[loneryder]

I drive past this wind farm at least every year. I wondered why they were replacing the blades and heads after such a short amount of time. It didn't make sense. Now I see why.

I drove by a huge agricultural farm in northern Mn. Covered with windmills. It was hideous looking.

 

[OVERKILL]

The lifetimes of the mechanical components were predicted to be 20 years, but there have been various failures from 2 to 10 years.

Me thinks the analysis of the gears, bearings, blades, and hubs was way too optimistic and many designs were rushed off to the field without comprehensive analyses.

All kinds of wind turbine lubricants of various base oil types have been tried and so far a few types have been found to be stable. But it is not so much a problem with the lubricants and the additives as it is the metallurgical failures, due mostly to 3-D vibration modes that are encountered stressing the mechanical components.

But those failures are with land-based turbines.

Now, put them out to sea and watch multiple corrosion problems arise.

Yeah, and offshore wind projects aren't "cheap". I've brought up the example of Ocean Wind before, which is, if you consider the amortization period, going to be more expensive than Vogtle for unit of power produced.

 

[chris719]

Forgetting about the politics and debate about other types of energy sources, one should not forget that grid level storage is going to be growing rapidly over the next 2 decades and so some of this power that is generated when it's not needed will be able to be buffered. There is also the possibility to use this power for "power-to-x" type stuff. If it is really a failure in the end it will go away. We should be careful to not judge nascent technologies as if they are immediately supposed to be able to supplant existing mature methods.

 

[KrisZ]

Forgetting about the politics and debate about other types of energy sources, one should not forget that grid level storage is going to be growing rapidly over the next 2 decades and so some of this power that is generated when it's not needed will be able to be buffered. There is also the possibility to use this power for "power-to-x" type stuff. If it is really a failure in the end it will go away. We should be careful to not judge nascent technologies as if they are immediately supposed to be able to supplant existing mature methods.

That's speculation. We have seen first hand what these alternate energy sources do to grid stability and rate prices across multiple years, countries/provinces/states. The experiment is set and quite predictable.
You cannot expect an average family to accept this reasoning when they are already struggling to pay their electric utility bill that it will all be better when storage tech catches up. Well, how would you know it would lower the cost for example? Even if it is implemented successfully.

We can and absolutely should judge these technologies because they are having a direct and negative impact on our lives.
What could or can happen in the future is just speculation and wishful thinking, nothing more. Battery tech has been waiting for a breakthrough for like two or three decades now. Nothing of the sort came to fruition, just incremental improvement. Just by this fact alone, we can only expect more incremental improvements in the future, not some radical breakthrough.

People had that exact same reasoning for IC engine back in the 70s during the first oil crisis. Breakthough was just around the corner, 100mpg carburetor, stuff like that. none of that came to being.

 

[OVERKILL]

Forgetting about the politics and debate about other types of energy sources, one should not forget that grid level storage is going to be growing rapidly over the next 2 decades and so some of this power that is generated when it's not needed will be able to be buffered. There is also the possibility to use this power for "power-to-x" type stuff. If it is really a failure in the end it will go away. We should be careful to not judge nascent technologies as if they are immediately supposed to be able to supplant existing mature methods.

grid-scale storage (the long duration kind) is currently only achievable through PHES, the price of which has only gone up. Batteries do not provide the necessary duration and will massively drive up the cost of already expensive projects (like offshore wind).

The problem with "well, in the end it will all go away if it fails" is that we'll have wasted time and potentially trillions of dollars at that point and everybody will be much worse off.

 

[4WD]

-

 

[chris719]

grid-scale storage (the long duration kind) is currently only achievable through PHES, the price of which has only gone up. Batteries do not provide the necessary duration and will massively drive up the cost of already expensive projects (like offshore wind).

The problem with "well, in the end it will all go away if it fails" is that we'll have wasted time and potentially trillions of dollars at that point and everybody will be much worse off.

Yes, but the intermediate term future is going to include some wind and solar. The real question is just how much and where. Nothing is perfect. Current estimates show large projected demand for battery storage, so we'll see on that. I work with lithium chemistry cells on a daily basis and I've designed charging circuits/firmware for them, so I am familiar with the current pitfalls.

I don't really want to get too deep into this because it's extremely complex and never ending, but I do think it is both very easy and human nature to reflexively dismiss new approaches to problems, especially when they come with a different set of tradeoffs than we are used to.

The waste on renewables will be still be fractions of the cost of the impact of climate change. It doesn't really matter if anyone believes if it's "man-made" or not, in a way. The risk-benefit analysis suggests that the cost of doing nothing IF we could have done something is so great that the sunk cost of what could be misguided "green" efforts will pale in comparison. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for total obvious boondoggles, but I don't think the data supports the idea that the quality of life of the first world is going to be compromised by leaning too hard into renewables.

 

[chris719]

People had that exact same reasoning for IC engine back in the 70s during the first oil crisis. Breakthough was just around the corner, 100mpg carburetor, stuff like that. none of that came to being.

I bet we could have some pretty fantastically efficient ICE vehicles if we accepted 70s safety standards and 80s horsepower though!

 

[KrisZ]

Greta Thunberg to receive an honorary doctorate in Theology. Follow the science people.


https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/...torate/video/4643fa45f855f5cd86582ad9abc4c5a9

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes, but the intermediate term future is going to include some wind and solar. The real question is just how much and where. Nothing is perfect. Current estimates show large projected demand for battery storage, so we'll see on that. I work with lithium chemistry cells on a daily basis and I've designed charging circuits/firmware for them, so I am familiar with the current pitfalls.

I don't really want to get too deep into this because it's extremely complex and never ending, but I do think it is both very easy and human nature to reflexively dismiss new approaches to problems, especially when they come with a different set of tradeoffs than we are used to.

I welcome going into the weeds, I've done numerous models on the costs of replacing firm generation with wind and solar, so if you've got something to add to that, I'm all ears.

For example, here's a comparison I did recently on twitter:

This is the two-week period in question. #Pickering2075 output was 1,018,596MWh, wind was 114,303MWh. This leaves us with a 904,293MWh deficit that we are going to try to fill with more wind + solar and storage.

The assumptions used for this exercise are as follows:
- Wind: $1,000,000/MW
- Solar: $1,547,000/MW (based on Nanticoke)
- Battery storage: $887,000/MWh (Hornsdale)
- Hydro storage: $412,500/MWh (Meaford)
- Wind CF: As depicted
- Solar CF: 18%

We'll start by quadrupling Ontario's wind fleet; adding 15,000MW of capacity. This will cost $15 billion. This bumps our output for the period to 460,551MWh and average output to 1,370MW. A 443,742MWh and 1,662MW deficit, respectively.

We'll now layer on top solar + storage. We need 1,662MW average + enough capacity to fill our storage. Working that backwards, we need 7,337MW of solar. Assuming 80% round-trip efficiency to our storage, that bumps us to 9,171MW. This will cost $14.2 billion.

We need ~12hrs of storage, roughly 20,000MWh (1,662MW averaged over 12hrs). With batteries, that's $17.7 billion, with PHES, that's $8.25 billion. So, total cost to match the output of #Pickering2075 for this period is: Using wind/solar + - batteries: $46.9B - PHES: $37.45B

---

That's more expensive than Vogtle, with ~1/4 the lifespan for the wind and solar and even less for the batteries.

And keep in mind, this is ONLY for this two week period. If this were to cover a similar period in the winter when solar CF is cut in half (or eliminated by snow), things get even spicier.

The waste on renewables will be still be fractions of the cost of the impact of climate change. It doesn't really matter if anyone believes if it's "man-made" or not, in a way. The risk-benefit analysis suggests that the cost of doing nothing IF we could have done something is so great that the sunk cost of what could be misguided "green" efforts will pale in comparison.

That assume that renewables will significantly reduce emissions to the levels we are seeing in nuclear and hydro dominated grids. So far, in many locations, that isn't happening. Germany has spent >$500 billion on VRE, has crippling electricity rates, energy poverty...etc and their grid is still >4x dirtier than France whose grid wasn't even built to be low emissions, it was just for energy security.

We don't only waste money on this experiment, we waste time, time that could be invested in solutions with an actual history of achieving this goal. Both France and Ontario built massive nuclear fleets and deeply decarbonized their grids in about 20 years, which is about as long as Germany has spent on that wind and solar build-out.

As for storage, we've done large storage (Racoon Mountain for example) to compliment large nuclear, to displace peaking gas. This is much easier with a source you know is going to be producing electricity next week, next month, next six months...etc, but it's still REALLY expensive.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for total obvious boondoggles, but I don't think the data supports the idea that the quality of life of the first world is going to be compromised by leaning too hard into renewables.

You might want to check out this thread:

Insane Electric Rate Increase $508.68/1522 kWh

We were warned last year that rates would be going up this month. We have all electric everything, including baseboard heat. Last month: $0.2320/kWh overall (supply + delivery) This month: $0.3342/kWh Increase: 44% overall (supply rate $361.95, Delivery $146.73 = $508.68) Use: 31% less than...

bobistheoilguy.com

California already has insane electricity rates, as do Germany and Denmark. The places with the cheapest electricity tend to have abundant hydro. California is extremely wealthy, the problem is when California-style rates hit states with median incomes that are a fraction of what folks make in California and we get lovely buzz phrases like "heat or eat" (that's one from Ontario here when the GEA was in full-swing).

 

[Shannow]

The lifetimes of the mechanical components were predicted to be 20 years, but there have been various failures from 2 to 10 years.

Me thinks the analysis of the gears, bearings, blades, and hubs was way too optimistic and many designs were rushed off to the field without comprehensive analyses.

All kinds of wind turbine lubricants of various base oil types have been tried and so far a few types have been found to be stable. But it is not so much a problem with the lubricants and the additives as it is the metallurgical failures, due mostly to 3-D vibration modes that are encountered stressing the mechanical components.

But those failures are with land-based turbines.

Now, put them out to sea and watch multiple corrosion problems arise.

Have seen the early units were not addapted to hot countries like Oz, and ended up having to have Air Conditioning to keep nacelle tmeperatures under control...lots of premature gearbox issues.

Interesting watching in real time as things "change" (not providing commentary, there's plenty of papers and opinion on the Oz situation)

 

[bbhero]

I will say this much… given that thread isn’t locked up yet… We all should donate $1 each for a Mega Millions lottery ticket next time it gets above 1 billion dollars and split the winnings between all of us who donated to that fund…