Wind turbines

[pmccarthy]

The Silverton wind farm near Broken Hill has a hub height of 110m and blade length 65m hence height 175m or 574 ft, so we are up there with the USA.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

...its a big money earner

Yep! Ever read about "Barbarians At The Gate? It touches on the activities of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co (KKR)

The pprune forum is owned by Internet Brands, which is owned by KKR. And if you go to the KKR website you will see they have an interest in Australian wind farms.

 

With the wind turbines, KKR can see a big money making scam a mile away. Though, I wonder why they got into internet forums? Hmmm... perhaps owning the forums aint about making money though more about controlling the discussion...

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

but this forum isn't owned by KKR?

 

 

[Ron5335]

From what I have been able to ascertain, it appears that coal is only harmful to the planet if you burn it in

 

Australia.

 

Interesting fact though, Australia already has 3 major pumped hydro plants (Shoalhaven, Wivenhoe Dam & Tumut 3) but they are seldom used

 

(In pump mode) because they are uneconomic. So now we are going to build a bigger one to solve our problems.

 

Kind of like the Irishmen who take a truck to the markets and but watermelons for $2 each and sell them by the side of the road for $1.50 each.

 

At the end of the day one turns to the other and says "We haven't made much money" and the other replies "We will have to get a bigger truck"

 

 

[kgwilson]

Of course they are uneconomic if you use fossil fuelled energy to run the pumps. If you use wind or solar energy that is surplus to demand to run the pumps, that makes it much cheaper with no pollution. Energy cost though is determined by the spot market. If the owners of the pumped hydro also owned wind or solar farms then they could divert energy to the pumps when the demand and therefore price is low and make a killing when the demand is high by selling the power now generated by releasing the water that was pumped up at a fraction of the cost. Not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination. It just requires real vision and detachment from the government influenced by the coal industry.

 

 

[Ron5335]

The plan is for 6 Pump/Generators, each on produces 300Mw in Generation and uses 350Mw when pumping.

 

So that's 1800 Mw max produced at the site in generation and 2100 Mw at the site when pumping, and seeing it will require a 100 klm of

 

new transmission lines to get it to the grid ( N/W of Goulburn) the plan says that that will have a 10% loss either way.

 

The feasibility study also states that it will be 60% efficient when running at 2000Mw (At the site).

 

Therefore in pump mode that's 40% extra power needed plus a 10% loss back from the grid,

 

Assuming we divert the solar farm at Royalla Act (20 Mw with 180,000 panels) back to Snowy Hydro then we only need to find

 

another 2180 Mw ( 2100 Mw required at the site + 10% extra for line loss = 2310, less the 20Mw from solar) 2290 Mw.

 

If we divert the output from over 2000 Wind Turbines, we can get the water up the hill, but what does everyone use for power in the meantime ?

 

Or economically, for every 2000 Mw they sell, they have to buy back 3,000 Mw to put the water back.

 

In kind it's like saying, we will replace the Boeing 737 engines that use 1,000 to 2,000 litres per hour with a couple of Continental 0-200's because they only use

 

60 - 80 litres per hour. People will think It's a plane and an aircraft engine, It should work.

 

I'm not anti renewables, just a realist

 

 

[kgwilson]

This is because Snowy 2 is a write off right from the start. The cost estimates are now around 8 billion, 4 times more than announced not so long ago by Turnbull. The government has absolutely no idea how to deal with changing from fossil fuelled energy to renewable energy. Private industry has ignored the politicians and is just doing it and profitably. The 22,000 potential pumped hydro sites around Australia identified in the ANU study are nothing like the ridiculousness of Snowy 2. They are much smaller less capital intensive & many use an infinite water source, the Sea.

 

Small scale stuff is also something that scares the crap out of the pollies. Individuals can install their own PV arrays, batteries and small hydro turbines and easily put in their own pumped hydro for a few thousand dollars. Off grid the government gets nothing from it and it worries them. Larger community schemes can sell and buy power from one another by storing excess generation and selling it to neighbours when they don't need it, buy it when they do. This is all existing technology and is working around the world.

 

The biggest wind turbines now produce 10MW turning at 2 rpm. Why are they being developed & installed at an exponential rate? The answer again is glaringly obvious. Quite cheap to manufacture and install and the raw material to produce the energy is free. It all adds up to PROFIT. All they have to do is a bit of ongoing maintenance and pay royalties to the landowner. It's Win-Win and THERE IS NO POLLUTION.

 

A real life example is a mate of mine who owns an airfield and is a farmer. He decided to build a new house to retire to on his property. The quote to put in poles & wires to provide power was more than 30k. He has 3 big freezers, 4 buildings, and no gas other than his BBQ. He put in solar panels, solar hot water, led lighting, energy efficient appliances, reverse cycle aircon, extra insulation and batteries. This was done nearly 3 years ago so he opted for existing deep cycle lead acid batteries rather than newer more efficient lithium technology. He also purchased a pretty big diesel generator as a backup. Not only was the cost less than the grid connection but to date he has only used the generator to make sure it still works by testing it at regular intervals. It has never had to be used to provide power that his renewable system was unable to supply.

 

 

[coljones]

The plan is for 6 Pump/Generators, each on produces 300Mw in Generation and uses 350Mw when pumping.So that's 1800 Mw max produced at the site in generation and 2100 Mw at the site when pumping, and seeing it will require a 100 klm of

new transmission lines to get it to the grid ( N/W of Goulburn) the plan says that that will have a 10% loss either way.

 

The feasibility study also states that it will be 60% efficient when running at 2000Mw (At the site).

 

Therefore in pump mode that's 40% extra power needed plus a 10% loss back from the grid,

 

Assuming we divert the solar farm at Royalla Act (20 Mw with 180,000 panels) back to Snowy Hydro then we only need to find

 

another 2180 Mw ( 2100 Mw required at the site + 10% extra for line loss = 2310, less the 20Mw from solar) 2290 Mw.

 

If we divert the output from over 2000 Wind Turbines, we can get the water up the hill, but what does everyone use for power in the meantime ?

 

Or economically, for every 2000 Mw they sell, they have to buy back 3,000 Mw to put the water back.

 

In kind it's like saying, we will replace the Boeing 737 engines that use 1,000 to 2,000 litres per hour with a couple of Continental 0-200's because they only use

 

60 - 80 litres per hour. People will think It's a plane and an aircraft engine, It should work.

 

I'm not anti renewables, just a realist

There are times, Ron, when wind turbines are spinning uselessly because there is no demand, when no-one is cooking or running A/C in Summer or heating in winter. (Ignoring of course expensive aluminium smelting). There are also time when users don't consume expected power being produced by coal fired stations which can't be turned off instantaneously. All this surplus power can be used to operate water storage systems with energy available on a quick release basis to the network.

[Ron5335]

There are times, Ron, when wind turbines are spinning uselessly because there is no demand,

Col, True, and the argument then develops into a tit for tat

Take a look at the big picture for an overall view

 

NSW between the hours of 10 pm & 6 AM on an average day consumes around 8,000 Mw per hour ( 10 PM ) and drops rarely below 6,000Mw ( 3 - 6 AM ) per hour during this period, and rises to around 10,000 Mw during the day and early evening. (AEMO Website figures)

 

Between 10 PM to 6 Am that is a minimum of 48,000 Mw used and 128,000 Mw (Av 8,000Mw) for the rest of the day.

 

To provide power during the evening period (Little wind & No Solar) the 48,000Mw would have to come from either batteries or pumped hydro and they would have to be recharged during the day, and both require additional power to do so, (Hydro is 30% minimum and batteries would be a lot lower) Overall lets say 15%.

 

Now the daily usage of power has jumped to 183,000 Mw (128.000 Mw normal usage, + 48,000 Mw Re charging + 7,200 Mw inefficiency factor )

 

So when Solar Farms and Wind Farms with their 20 - 50 Mw outputs are touted as taking us to the promised land, it's going take a lot of those 20's & 50's to reach any where near the 18,300 Mw per hour that is required.

 

It makes my Boeing 737 example more feasible.

 

 

[coljones]

Col, True, and the argument then develops into a tit for tatTake a look at the big picture for an overall view

NSW between the hours of 10 pm & 6 AM on an average day consumes around 8,000 Mw per hour ( 10 PM ) and drops rarely below 6,000Mw ( 3 - 6 AM ) per hour during this period, and rises to around 10,000 Mw during the day and early evening. (AEMO Website figures)

 

Between 10 PM to 6 Am that is a minimum of 48,000 Mw used and 128,000 Mw (Av 8,000Mw) for the rest of the day.

 

To provide power during the evening period (Little wind & No Solar) the 48,000Mw would have to come from either batteries or pumped hydro and they would have to be recharged during the day, and both require additional power to do so, (Hydro is 30% minimum and batteries would be a lot lower) Overall lets say 15%.

 

Now the daily usage of power has jumped to 183,000 Mw (128.000 Mw normal usage, + 48,000 Mw Re charging + 7,200 Mw inefficiency factor )

 

So when Solar Farms and Wind Farms with their 20 - 50 Mw outputs are touted as taking us to the promised land, it's going take a lot of those 20's & 50's to reach any where near the 18,300 Mw per hour that is required.

 

It makes my Boeing 737 example more feasible.

Somewhere, out there is a square. On one corner you have Abbott and the Rabbids, another you have the Lord will provides, another you have a very puce-faced Turnbull and on the final corner you have (the quite reasonable, fair-minded, honest) green power supporter. Is the solution anywhere inside this square?We should move this over to the other site and get your 737 out of the picture.

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

but this forum isn't owned by KKR?

Heh, if this forum where owned by KKR the discussion would be shut down by now or only 'tame' posts allowed..I haven't yet in-depth researched it though from what I can see the wind generators affecting the thread subject airfield are Honk Kong owned. So our taxpayer money likely ends up in China.

 

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So you see why coal is a dead asset, gas powered electricity can be switched on, scaled up and switched off fairly easily whereas you 30-40 year old coal plants aren't designed to be shutdown. Electricity consumption in the middle of the night is encouraged by a whole raft of off peak consumption incentives for things like hot water and street lighting, anything to keep those coal plants from shutting down.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sequestering carbon is a dream, an unproven faint hope that is ridiculously risky and expensive. Leaving it where it is, is the safest way, till you find a use for it other than oxidising it (Burning it) for the chemical heat available. The SUN can provide enough energy for the entire planet thousands of times over. You could waste it with a substantial % loss and not worry as no harm is done. You will be able to synthesis hydro carbons if you apply energy to the equation or produce Hydrogen without Brown or any other coal, from just water. There's a small mountain of sulphur surplus from crude oil too and Heavy metals from coal mining and combustion of coal. ALL mining of the common variety releases unwanted heavy metals and pollutes (poisons) rivers and the sea ultimately. The Combustion of carbon causes the oceans to become acidic which threatens the plankton and all crustaceans even if there was no warming at all the oceans are essential to life on this planet, not just for summer holidays either. The Chinese coal mining deaths are "admitted" to be 10,000 annually but considered to be a lot above that figure in reality. An occasional wind turbine coming unstuck isn't likely to kill many. They are not located in city streets or near freeways. and never will be. They don't create wind . The take energy from it just as tall trees do and slow down the winds at the surface as trees do.. I can't see why farming cant be done right up close to them either. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

"If we divert the output from over 2000 Wind Turbines, we can get the water up the hill, but what does everyone use for power in the meantime ?"

 

We will go back to "brown-out's" So they can say "We will have to increase the price Again". And the Government will pay higher incentives.

 

Then the oversea's company will be highly profitable.

 

 

[spacesailor]

FactHunter

 

The oceans were eons ago FRESH WATER, are you blaming humans for making it salty ?

 

If enough "wind farms" are built it cause or contribute to the earth's spin slowing, making us all HEAVY.

 

But what I was told could also be Hearsay.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[fly_tornado]

look how quickly coal stopped being competitive energy source in England

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Spacey...According to that theory you would weigh heavier at the poles and you don't. We could not build enough wind turbines to replace the trees we have cut down. for drag effect. In the big scheme of things it's probably only a miniscule effect. Mountain ranges have a big drag effect on winds. The Earth WILL slow down but the sun might engulf it before that is significant. Desal plants and mining WILL certainly make the Oceans more salty. If we mined the oceans we would reverse some of it. The oceans are an untapped resource for many things. I don't think the prehistory Oceans were fresh water either but I haven't read on that for a while Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this is just one year

 

 

 

[jetjr]

The best way forward is a mixture of each. As much wind and solar as people can afford and put up with limitations and coal tending to be replaced by gas or nuclear.

 

Its the idea we have to become all renewable that's causing massive cost and unrealistic goals.

 

Keep seeing here how cheap wind power is......not sure how people figure this as it required major storage systems to offer the same result as thermal sources. If youre not including this, as well as service and replacement, its not a equal comparison

 

At some point we will hear about altering energy and climate balances by over extraction of solar and wind energy.

 

Back to aviation, wind towers in regional areas 110m high are going to impact small end aviation. Another hazard to avoid like radio towers etc that can be flown into.

 

If the well fed part of the world wanted to lower emissions they should consume less resources, walk more and turn off the air con.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Going 100% renewable is feasible and possible within 20 years. It is more probable that it will take 30 years & that is only due to political interference. What we need is the least polluting options during the transition phase. That may include gas and nuclear even though nuclear has a waste problem as well as a decommissioning problem not to mention the enormous cost to set up both in time and money.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Our society depends on farming (affecting huge areas of land), urban and road development, affecting less land but causing much more environmental damage, and mining, affecting much less land again with much less environmental damage. So why the continual slurs on mining in posts above?

 

I don’t mean coal burning, that is a separate argument.

 

 

[Yenn]

Two things.

 

Have you seen the damage caused by mining. It is horrendous in the Hunter region and certainly not environmentally friendly. Even worse in Qld.

 

One way to ease the problem would be to use less electricity.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Damage by mining? Have a look at the roads and towns and cities! Damage is 100 times mining just in the greater Newcastle area.

 

Do you think that we need the infrastructure but we don't need mines?

 

 

[Flying Binghi]

regardless of what the gov says to placate the coal lobby the investment is obvious[ATTACH=full]54834[/ATTACH]

I see we are getting bombarded with graphs/charts again. I'm still waiting to hear what this graph is supposed to be telling us ?

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I see we are getting bombarded with graphs/charts again. I'm still waiting to hear what this graph is supposed to be telling us ?

you're at stage 3