Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wind powered Turbines, Etc., And Their Costs To The Public
#61
Fredledingue Wrote:LohnL, I'v never read or heard that maintenance of wind turbines was so huge. Once in while a guy must climb upthere to check and add grease the rotor. Replace some used parts. Nothing that expensive.

[/img]

Of course you haven't. Nobody talks about that, because they don't have the 'maintenance mindset'.

Think about this. There are a lot of pictures, of wind generating turbines, which are no longer being used. if you look closely, the blades are not moving. Why is that? Do you really think it is because the gears have been set on "Park", with that great automatic transmission in the sky?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#62
John... your pulling stuff out of your backside again. The bearings in windmills last a lot longer that 2 or 3 years and maintenance costs are not that high that they would be abandoned that quickly.

http://www.talentfactory.dk/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm

http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org...

Oh... and pictures don't show the fan blades moving because they are PICTURES!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#63
Buzz Wrote:John... your pulling stuff out of your backside again. The bearings in windmills last a lot longer that 2 or 3 years and maintenance costs are not that high that they would be abandoned that quickly.

http://www.talentfactory.dk/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm

http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org...

Oh... and pictures don't show the fan blades moving because they are PICTURES!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice try Buzz, throwing out two short, general, pages. The first page goes under the assumption that the entire operating life of the unit will be 20 years. But that does not specifically take into account the moving parts. AND trust me, this is going to be a best bet scenerio.

And the second link states this, up front.

Quote:Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs constitute a sizeable share of the total annual costs of a wind turbine. For a new turbine, O&M costs may easily make up 20-25 per cent of the total levelised cost per kWh produced over the lifetime of the turbine. If the turbine is fairly new, the share may only be 10-15 per cent, but this may increase to at least 20-35 per cent by the end of the turbine’s lifetime. As a result, O&M costs are attracting greater attention, as manufacturers attempt to lower these costs significantly by developing new turbine designs that require fewer regular service visits and less turbine downtime.

Ok, that still comes up to a lot. But unanswered is the headache of attempting to repair/replace the worn out bearings/sleeves.

OH, and as for that remark about the moving blades, I have actually watched videos, showing the units not turning. AND on some articles, it specifically states that the blades are not able to move.

You must actually believe the rest of us are at your level of intellect, right? Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#64
John L Wrote:Nice try Buzz, throwing out two short, general, pages.


It is more than you have provided.

John L Wrote:The first page goes under the assumption that the entire operating life of the unit will be 20 years.

No John... that is the design lifetime. Some units will last longer and some will not last that long.

John L Wrote:But that does not specifically take into account the moving parts. AND trust me, this is going to be a best bet scenerio.


Trust you??? :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry John but as many times as you have gotten your facts wrong I typically don't trust anything you say.

And did you even read the whole article? It specifically talks about the moving parts that are most likely to fail. And bearings are not one of them. If you want some proof that wind turbines generally last longer than 2 or 3 years then check out this excel spread sheet of Danish wind turbines that includes start up and decommission dates. Looks to me like the average life time is about 15 years with some only lasting 10 and others lasting as many as 30 years. Fact of the matter is that these units are not being abandoned after only 2 or 3 years.

John L Wrote:And the second link states this, up front.

Quote:Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs constitute a sizeable share of the total annual costs of a wind turbine. For a new turbine, O&M costs may easily make up 20-25 per cent of the total levelised cost per kWh produced over the lifetime of the turbine. If the turbine is fairly new, the share may only be 10-15 per cent, but this may increase to at least 20-35 per cent by the end of the turbine’s lifetime. As a result, O&M costs are attracting greater attention, as manufacturers attempt to lower these costs significantly by developing new turbine designs that require fewer regular service visits and less turbine downtime.

Ok, that still comes up to a lot. But unanswered is the headache of attempting to repair/replace the worn out bearings/sleeves.


Do you realize this includes the rent of the land that the tower is on as well as insurance and administration costs? Obviously not.

John L Wrote:OH, and as for that remark about the moving blades, I have actually watched videos, showing the units not turning. AND on some articles, it specifically states that the blades are not able to move.

Oh... so now it is video you saw. And did these videos and articles specifically state that these units were abandoned after only 2 or 3 years of use. I doubt it. Why don't you provide some links?

John L Wrote:You must actually believe the rest of us are at your level of intellect, right? Wink1


Sure... what ever you say John.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#65
Buzz Wrote:Trust you??? :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry John but as many times as you have gotten your facts wrong I typically don't trust anything you say.

Well, in that case, I am just wasting my time saying anything further to you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#66
John L Wrote:Well, in that case, I am just wasting my time saying anything further to you.
Which pretty much summed up my view on the lack of knowledge so blatantly displayed on this thread.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#67
All the wind turbines in my area are rotating everytime I see them. Some may stand idle from time to time but it never stroke me that some were never in use.

I imagine that a coal plants where parts are submited to high temperatures, dust, steam, thermal changes, etc have also a sheer size of maintenance cost.
And I'm not even talking about nuclear plants.
Reply
#68
To settle all these speculations, one needs data about the operating costs of existing wind mills. (Note: turbines are not the same a propellers, which adorn the power generating structures.) Have the windmills been around long enough to generate realistic data?

In this article, the US secretary of energy talks about the use of compact nuclear plants in a very favorable way. I cannot imagine that decommissioning a tiny power plant would be very expensive.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#69
We know so much more now about how to mass produce small nuclear reactors, which are transportable, safe to use, will not melt down, and are affordable, when looking at the long term. If someone wishes to spend monies in wind generation, fine with me. Only let's really get serious with producing energy that will really, really, get the job done.

If the nuclear industry would just go into a proposed neighborhood, and recruit for places to set up these smaller reactors, AND offer the surrounding neighbors a financial incentive for allowing them into the neighborhood, they would be in business and not have to fight for their plants. Just offer prospective neighbors a reduction in their power usage, and they would jump at the prospect.

This is why I tend to look at wind power generation as a passing fancy.

Here's the entire article, which does not show up on the link.

Quote:America's New Nuclear Option

America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president's 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors.

What does all of this mean for the country? This investment will provide enough clean energy to power more than six million American homes. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead.

Perhaps most importantly, investing in nuclear energy will position America to lead in a growing industry. World-wide electricity generation is projected to rise 77% by 2030. If we are serious about cutting carbon pollution then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Countries such as China, South Korea and India have recognized this and are making investments in nuclear power that are driving demand for nuclear technologies. Our choice is clear: Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow.

That is why—even as we build a new generation of clean and safe nuclear plants—we are constantly looking ahead to the future of nuclear power. As this paper recently reported, one of the most promising areas is small modular reactors (SMRs). If we can develop this technology in the U.S. and build these reactors with American workers, we will have a key competitive edge.

Small modular reactors would be less than one-third the size of current plants. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.

If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. The modular construction process would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times.

Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants. Some of the designs for SMRs use little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. Finally, some advanced concepts could potentially burn used fuel or nuclear waste, eliminating the plutonium that critics say could be used for nuclear weapons.

In his 2011 budget request, President Obama requested $39 million for a new program specifically for small modular reactors. Although the Department of Energy has supported advanced reactor technologies for years, this is the first time funding has been requested to help get SMR designs licensed for widespread commercial use.

Right now we are exploring a partnership with industry to obtain design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for one or two designs. These SMRs are based on proven light-water reactor technologies and could be deployed in about 10 years.

We are also accelerating our R&D efforts into other innovative reactor technologies. This includes developing high-temperature gas reactors that can provide carbon-free heat for industrial applications, as well as advanced reactor designs that will harness much more of the energy from uranium.

Just as advanced computer modeling has revolutionized aircraft design—predicting how any slight adjustment to a wing design will affect the overall performance of the airplane, for example—we are working to apply modeling and simulation technologies to accelerate nuclear R&D. Scientists and engineers will be able to stand in the center of a virtual reactor, observing coolant flow, nuclear fuel performance, and even the reactor's response to changes in operating conditions. To achieve this potential, we are bringing together some of our nation's brightest minds to work under one roof in a new research center called the Nuclear Energy Modeling and Simulation Hub.

These efforts are restarting the nuclear power industry in the U.S. But to truly promote nuclear power and other forms of carbon-free electricity, we need long-term incentives. The single most effective step we could take is to put a price on carbon by passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions will make clean energy profitable—and will fuel investment in nuclear power.

Mr. Chu is the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#70
I am happily surprised the Chu is in favor of these devices. Maybe the left and right can agree on something sensible and get it done.

There seems to be little downside to them. No extensive expensive grid remodeling: E.g. if some huge new solar or wind source were placed in the west or plains states much grid renovation or construction would be needed. Nearly portable, easily replaceable, etc.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#71
There is no such thing as "small ractors". Only smaller reactor. You still need the concret dome over it, the safety area around it and other stuffs that you can't miniaturize.
The idea is great where it's adapted. Not where one big plant will be more cost effective and efficient.

JohnL, FYI, a crane is not needed for turbine maintenance: workers can climb from inside the tower and there is an built-in crane to lift tools and parts to the top.
Reply
#72
Fredledingue Wrote:There is no such thing as "small ractors". Only smaller reactor. You still need the concret dome over it, the safety area around it and other stuffs that you can't miniaturize.
The idea is great where it's adapted. Not where one big plant will be more cost effective and efficient.
You appear to be misinformed on this. Read Chu's article. There have been other articles on this board about small reactors not requiring extensive concrete domes.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#73
That's not reactors, that's generators.

I'm not against the idea, and a lot of small units may pose smaller threat than a large one.
Thought a dome is a question of how secure you want them. Russians never built domes and it was ok all the time save once: Tchernobyl.
The small units must be built so that any leakage is totaly impossible.

But I don't think that you can build them on assembly lines like car batteries. Or that mass production will reduce the costs that much.
Reply
#74
Fredledingue Wrote:That's not reactors, that's generators.

I'm not against the idea, and a lot of small units may pose smaller threat than a large one.
Thought a dome is a question of how secure you want them. Russians never built domes and it was ok all the time save once: Tchernobyl.
The small units must be built so that any leakage is totaly impossible.

But I don't think that you can build them on assembly lines like car batteries. Or that mass production will reduce the costs that much.

A nuclear reactor is that And a generator of heat, which drives a turbine, which in turn generates electricity.

As for the Russian's shoddy example of nuclear power, they neglected two things. First, they built on the 'cheap', and also decided to use graphite as a coolant. It is cheap, but not as good as the expense of making one cooled by water(more parts and time involved). And second, they had poorly trained personnel, which left a disaster just waiting to happen. They were also State owned and operated. In most of the world, they are owned by private businesses, which are regulated by the government.

Now, the new reactors, or generators if you like, have progressed to such an extent that they do not need containment domes. The dome is there to contain escaping radioactive gas. With the new generation of tiny reactors, there is almost no chance of that occuring. There is a thread, somewhere here, which has articles detailing all of this. I just haven't looked for it yet.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#75
Quote:also decided to use graphite as a coolant.

That's not actually correct. Chernobyl type reactors use graphite as a moderator, not as coolant. They used regular old boiling water as a coolant.


Quote:Russians never built domes and it was ok all the time save once: Tchernobyl.

Someone is forgetting about the 1975 partial meltdown of the #1 reactor at the Leningrad nuclear power plant. Not coincidentally, the same style reactor as Chernobyl.
Reply
#76
I didn't want to get into that, as having accurate information has not been high on the agenda for this thread.

Interestingly enough they are replacing the old type reactors at Leningrad with a newer design, one that uses water for cooling AND moderating.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#77
It should be noted that the new reactors at Leningrad are being housed in full containment buildings just like Western reactors are.
Reply
#78
Windmills: Bigger waste than eHealth

Posted: October 01, 2009, 1:06 AM by NP Editor

By Michael Trebilcock

EXCERPT:

Ontarians take note. A detailed new Danish study shatters most of the myths that the Danish-based wind turbine industry has been propagating in Canada and around the world as to the virtues of wind power. The study, Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark by the Centre for Policy Studies in Copenhagen, strongly reinforces reservations that I have noted in previous op-eds in this newspaper.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs...ealth.aspx
Reply
#79
Fredledingue Wrote:There is no such thing as "small ractors". Only smaller reactor. You still need the concret dome over it, the safety area around it and other stuffs that you can't miniaturize.
The idea is great where it's adapted. Not where one big plant will be more cost effective and efficient.

JohnL, FYI, a crane is not needed for turbine maintenance: workers can climb from inside the tower and there is an built-in crane to lift tools and parts to the top.

Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update)

http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
Reply
#80
Small Nuclear Power Reactors

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

This link shows that it is a far better source of power than Windpower.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)