Wind Turbines - New York Times report

[Paul Waine]

Pretty neat report, including photos and videos of the largest wind turbines in the world.

How Windmills as Wide as Jumbo Jets Are Making Clean Energy Mainstream

By STANLEY REED, CARSTEN SNEJBJERG and RASMUS DEGNBOL APRIL 23, 2018

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018 ... mills.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The scale is amazing. Look at the workers on the nacelle at the top of the turbine.

The wind sensors are designed, built and supplied by a British company - you can see them if you look close enough, either side of the nacelle. Very clever technology.

Whatever you think about climate change, the engineering challenges overcome to build these giant windmills is very impressive.

[Dark Cloud]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

[Lancasterclaret]

Got eight outside our village on the moor. You just get used to them.

We've missed a trick to be honest, extensive wind generation with nuclear power back up and we'd be energy self-sufficent.

But no, we've got to rely on Russian gas and fracking.

[Falcon]

I do find it funny that the implementation of green energy won't come about because of the hard work of environmental campaigns but more likely because we're scared of Russia cutting us off.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its the zero long term planning done for this which is the worry, but its how we deal with things these days.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

When you drive west of Fort Worth towards El Paso which is through the old Texas oil country, there's a solid 200 miles of these. Because people who made their money in energy are not stupid.

[thatdberight]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

They look smart. Every bit as impressive as most man-made "must sees" in tourism. Smart.

[conyoviejo]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

No they don't ,they look great.. Don't have a problem with them .. Would be nice if they made them in different colours and gave them all an individual name for us Geeks..

[Blackrod]

Eyesore. Stunning drive into Scotland on M74 has been blighted because of these. View from North Wales Coast ruined again. Most Skylines on The Pennines ruined too.

[Stayingup]

Should not be on land at all. Should all be at sea where they kill thousands of birds. Good eh?

[houseboy]

Absolutely awful. They are ruining countryside everywhere, are not awfully efficient and the companies that operate them get paid more for having them switched off than they do when they are running (£100m last year). They can and do kill wildlife (mainly birds but occasionally bats) and can cause epilepsy because of something called 'shadowflash', cause when the sun is in a certain direction to houses. The only reason companies get into these things is money, they are not interested in the environment. And people forget that there is such a thing as visual pollution and they are the ultimate example of that. There are other and better ways of generating energy but no-one will explore them seriously enough, probably because of the cost.
The only place for them is out to sea and even then the look a mess.

[UpTheBeehole]

I think they're great.

[conyoviejo]

I think they're great.

So do I ***** the ne'er Sayers

[Dark Cloud]

Perhaps they could be green rather than white.

[thatdberight]

... they can cause epilepsy because of something called 'shadowflash', cause when the sun is in a certain direction to houses.

Even the Epilepsy Society, who tend to have the interests of sufferers at heart, seem to regard this as a theoretical and highly unlikely (actually impossible for commercial wind farms because of the speed restrictions) circumstance.

Wind is 14% of a £54bn market so that puts your £100m constraint payments in context. The "get paid more when they're off" line is numerical illiteracy since it relies on a "per Gigawatt hour" measure. Yeah, well obviously, when you're being paid to throttle supply, that'll happen. Those 1+% constraint payments are in the roundings.

As for "visual pollution", a matter of taste.

[Paul Waine]

Got eight outside our village on the moor. You just get used to them.

We've missed a trick to be honest, extensive wind generation with nuclear power back up and we'd be energy self-sufficent.

But no, we've got to rely on Russian gas and fracking.

Hi Lancs, wind generation can be one of our sources of energy - but, only when the wind is blowing. The very large wind turbines featured in the NYT are for offshore use, but even offshore the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Nuclear generation is NOT suitable for back-up power, Nuclear generators need to run all the time, so they are always the base load power source. Switching a nuclear generator on takes a long time. Switching off in an emergency can be achieved rapidly, but I think a massive repair job is required, as a result of the "crash" shutdown, before they can operate again.

Natural gas is best for rapid response, on/off generation operation, filling in the gaps if the wind stops blowing for several hours.

The UK doesn't burn Russian gas, as a rule. We used to have more than enough nat gas of our own from the N.Sea. Now that a lot of the UK N.Sea supplies are reduced - and we are reducing our coal fired generation - nat gas is imported from Norwegian N.Sea, Netherlands and LNG from the "world market" include reasonable volumes from Qatar, vie their LNG import facility at South Hook in South Wales.

Of course, Germany and other European nations do import very significant volumes of Russian nat gas.

Our nat gas supplies are capable of being filled with local production when fracking is developed. Of course, Ineos wants a lot of the nat gas production as feedstock for their chemical plant at Grangemouth.

[Hipper]

Ever since about the year 1100 or so we've had windmills. In the 1880s this country had 10,000 of them, mostly to mill grain but also to pump water. In 1954 only 15 or so remained. Coal in particular had become the source of energy.

I think it's great that windmills are back albeit in a modern more efficient form. Although I think we've irreversibly messed up regarding climate change we should still push on with using renewables in a suitable manner.

And here's how not to do it:

https://envirotecmagazine.com/2018/04/1 ... feed-drax/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bob-the-scutter]

Pretty neat report, including photos and videos of the largest wind turbines in the world.

How Windmills as Wide as Jumbo Jets Are Making Clean Energy Mainstream

By STANLEY REED, CARSTEN SNEJBJERG and RASMUS DEGNBOL APRIL 23, 2018

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018 ... mills.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The scale is amazing. Look at the workers on the nacelle at the top of the turbine.

The wind sensors are designed, built and supplied by a British company - you can see them if you look close enough, either side of the nacelle. Very clever technology.

Whatever you think about climate change, the engineering challenges overcome to build these giant windmills is very impressive.

So think about how much these things cost to manufacture, install, maintain, and then think to yourself......."How does this even pay for itself?"

[Hipper]

http://www.technologist.eu/life-cycle-o ... d-turbine/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bob-the-scutter]

So do I ***** the ne'er Sayers

So do I! I`d have one in my back garden if someone paid for it.

[jdrobbo]

Fascinated by them. I suppose I could post my 2005 dissertation on the justification of mid-Pennine wind farm locations, which did a comparative study of Cliviger v Scoutmoor (propose at the time). Quite surprising how many of my findings were proven accurate and now the turbines spin daily, high over Rossendale. Oh OK, I won't post it

[randomclaret2]

Horrible blights on our countryside

[Imploding Turtle]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

[mdd2]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

Not as bad a coal miners lungs

[If it be your will]

.

[Blackrod]

Only 3 turbines in that picture and in the distance. Considerably more on most of the sites I have seen.

[bfcjg]

Just need to crack proper battery storage and renewables will really take off,until then we will need fossil and nuclear as our main generator.

[Imploding Turtle]

Only 3 turbines in that picture and in the distance. Considerably more on most of the sites I have seen.

Wow. Talk about missing the point while at the same time perfectly embodying it.

[Imploding Turtle]

Just need to crack proper battery storage and renewables will really take off,until then we will need fossil and nuclear as our main generator.

I think solid-state batteries will be key.

[Shore claret]

If they could harness the hot air and bull **** from football message boards the world could be saved in mere minutes.

[Paul Waine]

I agree with the bold bit, but I'm not convinced by the reason given. As I understand it, it is quite easy to turn modern nuclear plants on and off. Okay, an emergency shutdown might wreck them, but a fairly casual one doesn't.

I understood its use as baseload supply is because of the cheapness of the raw material. Because uranium is so inexpensive, it turns out it costs just as much to have a nuclear station switched 'off' as it does switched 'on'. As such - once built - you might as well leave them on all the time, whatever the wholesale electricity price.

Tidal is the renewable challenger to nuclear in the baseload category, being the only ultra-reliable and predictable renewable, but it is still a little more expensive than nuclear. Even Hinckley is cheaper per unit than a Severn barrage. (Which is a great shame.)

Is there a nuclear scientist out there than can clear this up?

Hi iibyw, take a look at this link: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/q ... ower-plant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It does appear that a nuke engineer answered this question someone else asked in 2016. His start up adds up to 3 days (72 hours).

[If it be your will]

.

[deanothedino]

We've missed a trick to be honest, extensive wind generation with nuclear power back up and we'd be energy self-sufficent.

Not really. 1) they're ugly 2) it takes a lot of oil to make a wind turbine.

[deanothedino]

That's just someone from the nuclear navy, though. Maybe submarines are like that. You've made me look it up again now, and it's definitely an economic issue rather than a technical one for modern reactors. It's technically perfectly feasible to use nuclear as backup supply, it just makes nuclear power even more expensive than it already is. France and Germany often vary the output of their reactors to meet demand:

It is often believed that nuclear power plants can not operate in manoeuvring regimes. In fact, most of the currently operating NPPs were designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities (NEA, 2011) https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/ ... wing-e.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britain’s modern nuclear power plant Sizewell B in Suffolk was built in the 1990s. It, and any new build nuclear power plants, will be capable of flexible operations and perhaps even load following. https://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/0 ... -baseload/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nuclear power plants in France and Germany operate in a load-following mode to help stabilise the electricity grid on a minute-by-minute basis http://www.neimagazine.com/features/fea ... s-of-npps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just type 'load following capability nuclear' into google. Okay, it looks like if you literally switch one off and walk away, it takes it a while to get going again on your return. But they can idle until called upon fairly, or change their output regularly to meet demand fairly easily.

Varying load and turning it on and off are not the same. It will always be generating steam, hence why it's not suitable to only meet short-term demand it has to be providing some base power. Hydro is best for short-term.

[bfcmik]

Not really. 1) they're ugly 2) it takes a lot of oil to make a wind turbine.

And how much of that oil would you need to generate the amount the turbine will generate over it's lifespan? I'll bet that all the oil used in construction would generate less than 0.01% of the outpu of the wind turbine. And how much oil is burned to get the oil/gas to the power stations to be used in generating power?

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

That's just someone from the nuclear navy, though. Maybe submarines are like that. You've made me look it up again now, and it's definitely an economic issue rather than a technical one for modern reactors. It's technically perfectly feasible to use nuclear as backup supply, it just makes nuclear power even more expensive than it already is. France and Germany often vary the output of their reactors to meet demand:

It is often believed that nuclear power plants can not operate in manoeuvring regimes. In fact, most of the currently operating NPPs were designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities (NEA, 2011) https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/ ... wing-e.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britain’s modern nuclear power plant Sizewell B in Suffolk was built in the 1990s. It, and any new build nuclear power plants, will be capable of flexible operations and perhaps even load following. https://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/0 ... -baseload/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nuclear power plants in France and Germany operate in a load-following mode to help stabilise the electricity grid on a minute-by-minute basis http://www.neimagazine.com/features/fea ... s-of-npps/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just type 'load following capability nuclear' into google. Okay, it looks like if you literally switch one off and walk away, it takes it a while to get going again on your return. But they can idle until called upon fairly, or change their output regularly to meet demand fairly easily.

Thanks for the links, iibyw. However, I feel we are discussing two different things: NPP "load following" and "manoeuverability" are not the same as operating in back up. With the former the NPP will always be producing some power. With the latter, a back up plant would expect to be switched off whenever the "priority" source of energy was meeting all demand.

[If it be your will]

.

[walter the softy]

Eyesore. Stunning drive into Scotland on M74 has been blighted because of these. View from North Wales Coast ruined again. Most Skylines on The Pennines ruined too.

Unfortunately, we are in a situation where the world wants power and there are more and more of us. The scientists are pretty unanimous in that it is not sustainable.

I love a pretty landscape as much as the next person but I think these are part of the alternative to our reliance on fossil fuel which is quite literally bringing about our own destruction. It is a necessary evil if you like.

As for the engineering behind their construction as the OP mentioned, it really is something magnificent!

[deanothedino]

Yes, my original post 25 was slightly incorrect, but was corrected in my next one. When I said you can switch them on and off easily, I should have said switching from standby all the way through to 'max' is perfectly achievable. Strictly speaking you can't literally switch them off and walk away, then switch them back on again easily. But they can be used as backup supply, it would just be more expensive.

And they still can’t ramp up fast enough to provide peak backup like a hydro solution.

[deanothedino]

And how much of that oil would you need to generate the amount the turbine will generate over it's lifespan? I'll bet that all the oil used in construction would generate less than 0.01% of the outpu of the wind turbine. And how much oil is burned to get the oil/gas to the power stations to be used in generating power?

Well I’d advocate baseload coming from nuclear anyway.

I was more pointed out that wind turbines aren’t as environmentally friendly as people think. Your 0.01%, is that over the turbines whole life? Because if you mean short term then it’s miles off. Will take months for a turbine to offset its manufacturing carbon cost.

[houseboy]

Even the Epilepsy Society, who tend to have the interests of sufferers at heart, seem to regard this as a theoretical and highly unlikely (actually impossible for commercial wind farms because of the speed restrictions) circumstance.

Wind is 14% of a £54bn market so that puts your £100m constraint payments in context. The "get paid more when they're off" line is numerical illiteracy since it relies on a "per Gigawatt hour" measure. Yeah, well obviously, when you're being paid to throttle supply, that'll happen. Those 1+% constraint payments are in the roundings.

As for "visual pollution", a matter of taste.

So it's fair to say then that you think paying companies 100m per year to do nothing is a good thing?
And the visual pollution argument is valid. Huge numbers of people hate these things and with other renewable forms of energy being less intrusive don't you think we should be investing more in those. Why, when a windfarm is planned, do you think that they are opposed but usually get the go-ahead? Is it really out of environmental interest? Do you REALLY believe that the companies operating them are doing so from the point of view of the environment? Of course they aren't, they see an opportunity to make money and they have no care for the environment of those living where they are being built. It would be interesting to see how many of these companies directors live near one.
The epilepsy argument is theoretical I will admit and I don't know if it has ever happened (I only said 'could') but even if there is a slight risk it should be investigated more.
To put things in context, and going back to other forms of renewable energy not being invested in sufficiently, the 14% of business figure itself shows that windfarms cannot be the answer. Can you even begin to imagine how many of these things would be required if we ever needed to go totally renewable?

[Falcon]

The future is tidal IMO.

However, wind energy has its place. I think these windmills enhance the landscape rather than being ugly. I accept that is a matter of taste though.

[thatdberight]

So it's fair to say then that you think paying companies 100m per year to do nothing is a good thing?
And the visual pollution argument is valid. Huge numbers of people hate these things and with other renewable forms of energy being less intrusive don't you think we should be investing more in those. Why, when a windfarm is planned, do you think that they are opposed but usually get the go-ahead? Is it really out of environmental interest? Do you REALLY believe that the companies operating them are doing so from the point of view of the environment? Of course they aren't, they see an opportunity to make money and they have no care for the environment of those living where they are being built. It would be interesting to see how many of these companies directors live near one.
The epilepsy argument is theoretical I will admit and I don't know if it has ever happened (I only said 'could') but even if there is a slight risk it should be investigated more.
To put things in context, and going back to other forms of renewable energy not being invested in sufficiently, the 14% of business figure itself shows that windfarms cannot be the answer. Can you even begin to imagine how many of these things would be required if we ever needed to go totally renewable?

I think the £100m is part of the overall commercial solution for wind power (as part of £7but total) that controls the supply. You think it's something for nothing for some reason probably to do with your long rant about the environment.
No, I don't think the companies involved are environmental charities. They're businesses being guided towards something that is an overall good to society by market control and legislation while they make profits from it. As said before, but you seem unable to accept it, I think they look smart. So do some others on here; I accept that's not a universal view. You should try that; accepting some people have a different view than you. It doesn't mean you have to change yours or that yours isn't valid. It just might stop you ranting.
The epilepsy thing is "theoretical" or, if you read the British Epilepsy Association article, it seems more like they think it's "bull".

[houseboy]

I think the £100m is part of the overall commercial solution for wind power (as part of £7but total) that controls the supply. You think it's something for nothing for some reason probably to do with your long rant about the environment.
No, I don't think the companies involved are environmental charities. They're businesses being guided towards something that is an overall good to society by market control and legislation while they make profits from it. As said before, but you seem unable to accept it, I think they look smart. So do some others on here; I accept that's not a universal view. You should try that; accepting some people have a different view than you. It doesn't mean you have to change yours or that yours isn't valid. It just might stop you ranting.
The epilepsy thing is "theoretical" or, if you read the British Epilepsy Association article, it seems more like they think it's "bull".

Perhaps you might care to explain why I should accept the view that some hold that they are 'smart'. We are not talking about music here, or films or fashion but something that has a visual impact for EVERYBODY regardless of taste. It's a bit like someone who hates Big Brother but being forced to sit and watch it. Your argument doesn't hold water on that point at all.
I'd be very interested to see where the Epilepsy Society described the possible effects as 'bull', or are you being a little creative there?
Why exactly would my thinking they are getting something for nothing (which strictly speaking they are) have anything to do with my 'environmental rant' (which 'rant' would that be I wonder?).
You seem somewhat confused here.

[thatdberight]

Perhaps you might care to explain why I should accept the view that some hold that they are 'smart'. We are not talking about music here, or films or fashion but something that has a visual impact for EVERYBODY regardless of taste. It's a bit like someone who hates Big Brother but being forced to sit and watch it. Your argument doesn't hold water on that point at all.
I'd be very interested to see where the Epilepsy Society described the possible effects as 'bull', or are you being a little creative there?
Why exactly would my thinking they are getting something for nothing (which strictly speaking they are) have anything to do with my 'environmental rant' (which 'rant' would that be I wonder?).
You seem somewhat confused here.

Now you're just being (deliberately I hope) dim.

You only get something for nothing if it's not part of a bigger thing. The £100m is part of a much bigger piece not just in terms of wind power but the whole electricity generation market.
I never said they said it was "bull". I said (I'll quote so you're clear) "it seems like they think it's"bull"". Does it need to be clearer for you?
Like other things in life, wind farms have an impact on everybody, regardless of what they think. By your logic, you shouldn't have to be subject to laws brought in by a government you didn't vote for. It's your argument that makes no sense.

Oh, and by the way, they do look reet smart.

[Top Claret]

Bloody awful things are those ghastly wind turbines, they want ripping down, a complete eyesore.

Bring on fracking. Fracking is far easier on the eye and a 1000 times more economic and does not spoil our lovely country side

[gandhisflipflop]

Still look at bit of a mess though, don't they?

I'm a big fan.

[thatdberight]

Bloody awful things are those ghastly wind turbines, they want ripping down, a complete eyesore.

Bring on fracking. Fracking is far easier on the eye and a 1000 times more economic and does not spoil our lovely country side

Although fracking is obviously both a fossil fuel and not unlimited.

[thatdberight]

I'm a big fan.

Well, you'd be bound to like them then.