https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar/

[Guy Daley + 49]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Mostly true, Guy.   The issue in Vermont is that those infernal machines are on the ridgelines.  So you have large birds, typically bald eagles, that ride the pressure waves up over the ridge and smack into the blades, which at the tips are travelling just about at the speed of sound - much faster than a bird can sense and detour around.   The machines also kill an extraordinary number of bats.  That seems to be a big problem in Pennsylvania. 

Just guessing, much smaller machines that have much lower tip speeds are likely to be less of a problem for birds.  You would likely need to get down to the 150 KW range with blades down to 40 feet or so.  Nobody is considering such small machines these days.  Those gigantic machines with 160-foot blades seem to be the problem.  Plus, common sense says don't put them up  where the eagles nest!

Speed of sound?  Do you realize how fast that is?  Stop yakking your damn gums Jan and go walk under some of those turbines.   You will find NO BIRD CARCASSES.  Stop binging on the the propaganda and find out for yourself.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

45 minutes ago, Richard D said:

An anemometer could be adapted as the design of a vertical-axis wind turbine. They would not have to turn into the wind and would not not be so visually intrusive. Also,the generator could be at ground level,allowing the machine to be larger. The economies of scale would allow less copper to be used,per unit of generating capacity. The increasing need for copper in the coming decade has seen few plans for new mines,whereas the demand for cobalt and nickel has produced much exploration of laterite deposits in Australia.

Actually, that design type sucks for efficiency, basic engineering, and cost.  Both in terms of theoretical and in terms of practice.  You have ZERO speed control which means you have ZERO ability to manage stresses.  If a windstorm ever comes through you are (insert 4 letter word + your favorite ending).  Your generator statement is just absurdly laughable and is in fact the OPPOSITE of what you wrote.  There is one LARGE upside to such a generator.... HIGH voltage, VERY high voltage, but super high voltage lines in an enclosed space... uh, Houston, we have a problem, so would necessitate running them on the outside of the tower(not a big deal IMO), but would create another MAJOR problem, BIRD nesting as now you cannot seal your generator space and can you say "clean up on aisle 9? + corrosion problems etc.  But, such a motor rigidity/tolerances would be necessarily HIGH which means EXPENSIVE for such a low power output and why they are not put on existing wind turbines already.  It would make possible cheaper PM generator or potential for it anyways. 

As for the copper situation, there are GOBS of new copper mines but the truth is Chile/Peru have pretty much all the worlds copper anyone needs currently and can ramp quickly, and then there are all the reserves of Chile/Australia/Peru that can be tapped. 

Got anything more to put up on a T for others to smack around? 

[Ulysses + 21]

These are great discussions. I didn’t see much that addresses increased grid instability associated with renewables. Apparently, batteries intended as backup power for renewables are used to provide ongoing stability in California. Same is true of Tesla’s batteries in Australia. They provide stability, not backup power. Backup power is a long way off.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/16/california-secretly-struggles-with-renewables/

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

For wind, "efficiency" is not an interesting metric. For solar, "efficiency" is only interesting in exotic situations where cost is driven by area. Everywhere else, the interesting metric is the amount of energy captured per invested dollar. Who cares how much wind is not captured or how much solar is not captured, except as it affects the capital cost?  For other generators, "efficiency" is a critical metric because the fuel is expensive.

Correct. My concern is the mining, soil runoff, toxicity, and other pollution from disposal over hundreds of years. This compared to natural gas and its issues. The issue is important to me because I do not believe in the man caused global warming that has been predicted for decades. I do not want natural gas to be demonized any more than wind and solar. I am just for the best choice, whatever it turns out to be. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Li-ion is currently dominates for home-scale and utility-scale fixed batteries, but this is because Tesla/Panasonic (and then others) built huge battery factories for car batteries in anticipation of future EV demand. They needed an outlet for the extra batteries, so they developed the fixed batteries employing the same Li-ion cells used for EVs. So "repurposed" in the broad sense, not so much "repurposed" second-hand EV batteries. The economies of scale driven by EVs make the li-ion batteries cost-effective. Now that there are validated large markets for fixed utility-scale and home batteries, it is worth the investment in R&D and factory build-out to pursue a battery that is more cost-effective for fixed applications, but it will have to be clearly superior to displace the entrenched Li-ion, much as "superior" technologies like turbines and Wankels failed to displace the piston ICE.

If a non-lithium battery (e.g., Na-ion) displaces Li-ion, then all of those current li-ion fixed batteries can be recycled to extract their lithium to make EV batteries when they reach end-of-life.

Lithium is a potent antipsychotic used for bipolar disorder and also causes malformation in birds beaks and undoubtedly other problems. 

 

From Wikipedia under precautions:

Lithium metal is corrosive and requires special handling to avoid skin contact. Breathing lithium dust or lithium compounds (which are often alkaline) initially irritate the nose and throat, while higher exposure can cause a buildup of fluid in the lungs, leading to pulmonary edema. The metal itself is a handling hazard because contact with moisture produces the caustic lithium hydroxide. Lithium is safely stored in non-reactive compounds such as naphtha.^[174]

Lithium metal is corrosive and requires special handling to avoid skin contact. Breathing lithium dust or lithium compounds (which are often alkaline) initially irritate the nose and throat, while higher exposure can cause a buildup of fluid in the lungs, leading to pulmonary edema. The metal itself is a handling hazard because contact with moisture produces the caustic lithium hydroxide. Lithium is safely stored in non-reactive compounds such as naphtha.^[174]

http://www.lithiummine.com/lithium-mining-and-environmental-impact

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

The article starts with a strawman statement that environmentalists are arguing for a society run completely on solar / wind & batteries. 

Where is such an argument made? 

For sure solar and wind would be a major part of a fully renewables based economy but would also include

• Biogas
• Biomass
• Waste to energy
• Geothermal
• Hydro
• Tidal
• Wave (if its developed)

In terms of storage Lithium batteries are not really appropriate and are better purposed as vehicle batteries where weigh is an issue. I know Musk has built several demo plants. Lithium will be used but in most cases in the form of repurposed vehicle batteries

As Meredith points out Sodium Ion batteries are available. No shortage of Sodium. There is 10Kg in every m3 of seawater. There are other options such as Vanadium flow

In any case Hydro and pump storage will be the main energy store mechanisms

Other possibilities include compressed air, weights on cables in mine shafts, rail on hills type mechanisms. 

Interconnectors help address intermittency

Plus chemical energy - H2 and Ammonia

Many pragmatic environmentalists accept nuclear will play a part along with some natural gas. 

 

Where do you think the "strawman"  argument comes from? The most powerful voices in the country that want to ban fossil fuels. Therefore it is not a strawman argument. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Its a nonsense article designed for people with no ability to critic what they hear

All the metals on a wind turbine are recyclable

The fibre glass  blades have potential reuses but in most cases have utility as a fuel (brick, cement plants). There is someone repurposing them as potential bridge spans. 

Theoretically you can dig up the concrete but its probably not worth the effort. Calcium Carbonate is hardly a supply limited resource. 

Most of a solar panel can be recycled and the predominant materials are Aluminium (the most common metal on earth) and glass which is made from sand. The glass can be recycled or used as road base. 

Wind turbines generally last longer than 20 years. Likewise for solar. 

The 60% max efficiency is just a nonsense red herring statement. The available resource is many times that of the entire planets energy needs. The global resource is something like 11 million TWH Likewise similar arguments for solar. 

Everyone know there is unlimited wind and solar. Maybe not solar depending on volcanic activity which can really produce a mass darkout destroying solar usage. 

Increased snowfall apparently affects solar panels quite a bit. My solar lights are not working.  I just bought some and three days of dim sunlight mean they are not working at all. We have had a light dusting of snow since Jan.3. aside from one day. The short days have a big effect too, causing the lights not to illuminate my windmill with reflective tape. 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Dalton-minimum

[markslawson + 1,061]

20 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html

https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine

https://natron.energy/

For starters.

MP - you're becoming hysterical again. The sources you quote are okay as far as they go but they're talking about different things. The presenter is talking about long term yields from the basically freely available silicon cells, the sources you quote are highly specialised, very expensive diodes with temporarily high yields. Sorry but he's correct. As for the wind he's talking mostly about onshore wind - offshore wind has higher yields but at massively greater costs, look at the offshore engineering required for those huge installations - but, okay, a claimed higher capacity factor for offshore.

In your other posts you're really flailing around. Everyone accepts 20 years or so for PVs. Sure they can last longer but their performance starts to degrade particularly as the casing corrode and fade. Some applications they may certainly last longer. Its the same for wind turbines. Sure they can last longer but they become expensive to maintain - think cars..     

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, Guy Daley said:

Speed of sound?  Do you realize how fast that is?  Stop yakking your damn gums Jan and go walk under some of those turbines.   You will find NO BIRD CARCASSES.  Stop binging on the the propaganda and find out for yourself.  

Here you go:

In New England, the bald eagles ride the thermals looking at prey on the ground, focus on that, and dive down - smack into the rotor plane of the wind machine.   Bye-bye eagle.  

From the study:

Finally, note that many raptor species are slaughtered, more by the large machines (as the swept area is larger).  Figure on 2.3 fatalities /MW generation/year.  That is a lot of birds:

 

[Meredith Poor + 898]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

MP - you're becoming hysterical again.

Sounds misogynistic. 

[Guy Daley + 49]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Here you go:

In New England, the bald eagles ride the thermals looking at prey on the ground, focus on that, and dive down - smack into the rotor plane of the wind machine.   Bye-bye eagle.  

From the study:

Finally, note that many raptor species are slaughtered, more by the large machines (as the swept area is larger).  Figure on 2.3 fatalities /MW generation/year.  That is a lot of birds:

 

Frankly I don't give a sh*t what you quote or what sort of pictures you generate as for propaganda purposes you can take a picture somewhere removed from the place and insert it in the propaganda piece.  What I have done which you COMPLETELY DISCOUNT is my experience of walking/hikiing under wind turbines, in Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma (like to go on hikes with my dogs) and nary a bird is found.  Funny that.  

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Where do you think the "strawman"  argument comes from? The most powerful voices in the country that want to ban fossil fuels. Therefore it is not a strawman argument. 

A strawman argument is falsely presenting and arguing against something that you claim your opposition supports

In this case an economy run solely on wind, solar and batteries. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Everyone know there is unlimited wind and solar. Maybe not solar depending on volcanic activity which can really produce a mass darkout destroying solar usage. 

Increased snowfall apparently affects solar panels quite a bit. My solar lights are not working.  I just bought some and three days of dim sunlight mean they are not working at all. We have had a light dusting of snow since Jan.3. aside from one day. The short days have a big effect too, causing the lights not to illuminate my windmill with reflective tape. 

https://www.britannica.com/science/Dalton-minimum

No region with significant snow fall would rely on solar as a main source of electricity not least because of the short winter day. However there are technologies which will clear snow off panels and as they are usually sloped the snow slides off quite easily. 

In terms of frame mounted  solar panels they defrost pretty quickly due to reflected solar light hitting the underside of the panel. Transparent will also help with this issue. 

Your solar lights and garden windmill are hardly a good proxy for utility scale wind and solar. 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, Ulysses said:

These are great discussions. I didn’t see much that addresses increased grid instability associated with renewables. Apparently, batteries intended as backup power for renewables are used to provide ongoing stability in California. Same is true of Tesla’s batteries in Australia. They provide stability, not backup power. Backup power is a long way off.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/16/california-secretly-struggles-with-renewables/

Batteries are great for stabilising grid frequency and as short term operational reserves. You need this as much for conventional plant as you do for renewables. 

In the UK battery banks are used as an STOR. I think the requirement from national grid is a minimum of 200KW for 2 hours. Our company is in this scheme. At its data centre it replaced the shitty diesel gen sets with decent wartsilla units. They have to cycle the diesel through anyway so why not use the units to provide STOR and get a payment for it. 

I don't see batteries being a viable option for longer term storage - thats where pump storage, compressed air or other gravity system using weights comes in (Heavy weight in a disused mineshaft / off the side of a sheer cliff) . 

The exception with batteries maybe if we go to a full EV economy then their will be a massive supply of end of vehicle life batteries but which have decades of functionality left which can be banked together as short / medium term operating reserves. This will also help with recycling as it will group the batteries together prior to their end of life point. 

End of vehicle life EV batteries are already being converted for home use and are somewhat cheaper than the Tesla powerwall. 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, Guy Daley said:

Speed of sound?  Do you realize how fast that is?  Stop yakking your damn gums Jan and go walk under some of those turbines.   You will find NO BIRD CARCASSES.  Stop binging on the the propaganda and find out for yourself.  

Likewise. I regularly walk past some turbines on the Essex (UK) coast. If these were bird killing machines there would be plenty of evidence. There isn't. 

An anti wind bod I know says - ah but predators (in our case foxes and badgers) will carry off the carcasses. True - but they won't clean up the piles of feathers and splatter left over from the collision with a blade. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/16/2021 at 2:54 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Mostly true, Guy.   The issue in Vermont is that those infernal machines are on the ridgelines.  So you have large birds, typically bald eagles, that ride the pressure waves up over the ridge and smack into the blades, which at the tips are travelling just about at the speed of sound - much faster than a bird can sense and detour around.   The machines also kill an extraordinary number of bats.  That seems to be a big problem in Pennsylvania. 

Just guessing, much smaller machines that have much lower tip speeds are likely to be less of a problem for birds.  You would likely need to get down to the 150 KW range with blades down to 40 feet or so.  Nobody is considering such small machines these days.  Those gigantic machines with 160-foot blades seem to be the problem.  Plus, common sense says don't put them up  where the eagles nest!

😀  -1242km/h.........

Even the biggest land based turbines with 150m rotor spans don't get anywhere near that. 

These 75m (150 m diameter blades get up to 180mph

The World's Biggest Wind Turbine Blades Are So Long Their Tips Spin at 180 MPH (gizmodo.com)

They would have to reach an RPM of 44 (well above spec) to hit mach 1 at the tips. Design specs for these units is 15-20 RPM after which they start feathering to reduce rotor speed

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

52 minutes ago, NickW said:

😀  -1242km/h.........

Even the biggest land based turbines with 150m rotor spans don't get anywhere near that. 

These 75m (150 m diameter blades get up to 180mph

The World's Biggest Wind Turbine Blades Are So Long Their Tips Spin at 180 MPH (gizmodo.com)

They would have to reach an RPM of 44 (well above spec) to hit mach 1 at the tips. Design specs for these units is 15-20 RPM after which they start feathering to reduce rotor spee

Journalists blah...  @154m D = ~ 1/2 km/revolution

The stated 180mph(300km/h) would be Mach 0.25 = ~600 revolutions/hour = 10 RPM

When 6MW is reached at 10RPM, this would be the point at which the wind turbine starts pitching the blade for increased wind velocity and not collecting the excess power.  Its stated 15RPM or 20 RPM would be the point at which the turbine is designed to blow apart.  There is zero way this is its operational RPM as it would have a tip speed of M0.5 and would be cranking out 2X its power.  Power of course is Torque X RPM.  Ok, it would actually be roughly 1.5X as  the operational CL would be lower due to decreased angle of attack, but still... 9MW on a 6MW motor... Service rating factor of 1.5 on a giant motor... yea I do not think so.  A service rating factor of 1.1 or 1.05 is fairly common and the largest I have EVER seen is 1.2 and the sucker was labeled as a 1HP motor and was larger than most 5HP motors... By the way, most motors civilians buy have service rating factors of under 1 and as low as 0.7 if you can believe it... So, next time some giant sticker says 5KW! when you see a motor the size of your fist... yea just know it in reality is maybe a 0.5KW motor...

Or since this is journos speaking... more than likely they were quoted the OPERATIONAL speed of the blade, not its tip speed, which would align with the fact that 180mph = M0.25 was a composite of the blade.  IE: Its lift centroid was M0.25.  Its tip speed would actually be higher.  But, then again... see next paragraph and why I think the 180mph(Mach 0.24) is actually correct, but its RPM is the 10RPM I calculated or maybe 12RPM and certainly NOT the 20 where maybe 15RPM is its cutout overspeed and 20RPM is where it blows apart.

I have read before(assuming my brain has not farted out) that the operational speed of this 6MW turbine was 12-->15RPM, not the 10 RPM stated as only the newest and biggest giant GE Halide X will be operating at 10RPM with its 110m long blades with a tip speed of ~M0.35 which I believe is the highest in the world and only allowed for oceans.  Ice thrown from such a tip speed, on a 110m arm... hrmmm I wonder how far that Trebuchet rock will let fly... 😎

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

No region with significant snow fall would rely on solar as a main source of electricity not least because of the short winter day. However there are technologies which will clear snow off panels and as they are usually sloped the snow slides off quite easily. 

In terms of frame mounted  solar panels they defrost pretty quickly due to reflected solar light hitting the underside of the panel. Transparent will also help with this issue. 

Your solar lights and garden windmill are hardly a good proxy for utility scale wind and solar. 

I speculate that anyone who is serious about using solar in winter at snowy latitudes will tilt those panels to a steep pitch. Optimal fixed pitch to maximize yearly power equals your latitude. This is already steeper that most roofs,  but higher-latitude locations need to optimized for winter since air conditioning is not much of a problem at snowy latitudes. These pitches are extreme. The panels are slick, so snow will slide off easily. The folks who build DIY thermal solar panels in North Dakota often mount them vertically. and take advantage of the light reflected from the snow in addition to the direct light. I have no ides wit this would work for PV panels.

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I speculate that anyone who is serious about using solar in winter at snowy latitudes will tilt those panels to a steep pitch. Optimal fixed pitch to maximize yearly power equals your latitude. This is already steeper that most roofs,  but higher-latitude locations need to optimized for winter since air conditioning is not much of a problem at snowy latitudes. These pitches are extreme. The panels are slick, so snow will slide off easily. The folks who build DIY thermal solar panels in North Dakota often mount them vertically. and take advantage of the light reflected from the snow in addition to the direct light. I have no ides wit this would work for PV panels.

Solar in sub zero conditions at high altitude is very productive. As you say its easy to tilt them to minimise snow accumulation. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I speculate that anyone who is serious about using solar in winter at snowy latitudes will tilt those panels to a steep pitch. Optimal fixed pitch to maximize yearly power equals your latitude. This is already steeper that most roofs,  but higher-latitude locations need to optimized for winter since air conditioning is not much of a problem at snowy latitudes. These pitches are extreme. The panels are slick, so snow will slide off easily. The folks who build DIY thermal solar panels in North Dakota often mount them vertically. and take advantage of the light reflected from the snow in addition to the direct light. I have no ides wit this would work for PV panels.

Ive got 48 thermal vacuum tubes and 1.5KW of PV on my roof installed last year The angle is about 40 degrees.. It will be interesting to see how quickly they clear after a heavy blanket of snow. Not that we ever get much snow. Had a dusting the other day that melted by about 9am. 

[markslawson + 1,061]

19 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Sounds misogynistic. 

No, accurate - instead of trying to refute the arguments on their merits you flail around trying to find ways to discredit the video piece. In fact the presenter just touched on the vast problems that have become evident in trying to use renewables on the enormous scales activists propose. They are no solution, just another, larger set of problems and you should know this by now. Leave it with you..    

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

No region with significant snow fall would rely on solar as a main source of electricity not least because of the short winter day. However there are technologies which will clear snow off panels and as they are usually sloped the snow slides off quite easily. 

In terms of frame mounted  solar panels they defrost pretty quickly due to reflected solar light hitting the underside of the panel. Transparent will also help with this issue. 

Your solar lights and garden windmill are hardly a good proxy for utility scale wind and solar. 

You should see my windmill go! I mean to check with the city to see if I can put up a power producing one (small) for fun. I also do own a "real" solar panel I haven't tried yet. It might run an LED bulb pretty well. We have wind farms nearby. Up to 40 mph winds and a rare derecho. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

A strawman argument is falsely presenting and arguing against something that you claim your opposition supports

In this case an economy run solely on wind, solar and batteries. 

How can it be a Strawman Argument if Biden fully supports it?

[Meredith Poor + 898]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

No, accurate - instead of trying to refute the arguments on their merits you flail around trying to find ways to discredit the video piece. In fact the presenter just touched on the vast problems that have become evident in trying to use renewables on the enormous scales activists propose. They are no solution, just another, larger set of problems and you should know this by now. Leave it with you..    

Do you sit around in an office and order the women to make tea for you?

[nsdp + 449]

On 1/16/2021 at 4:05 PM, Ulysses said:

These are great discussions. I didn’t see much that addresses increased grid instability associated with renewables. Apparently, batteries intended as backup power for renewables are used to provide ongoing stability in California. Same is true of Tesla’s batteries in Australia. They provide stability, not backup power. Backup power is a long way off.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/16/california-secretly-struggles-with-renewables/ in with.

===============================================================Properly sited wind farms in Wyoming and the Texas Panhandle have been delivering 51%capacity since 2014 if you have followed papers Presented at the ASME annual conferences, 10% increase over PragerU's outdated 2008 info.  Multilayer solar panels  which cover from ultraviolet to near infrared are 41% efficient. Visible light only is 21% if you buy quality panels. 

This is the state of the art storage in China. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN104937222B/en Note the date 9/22/17.  China will have 7 years worth of plant construction(first one complete last October) on line by the time the first plant goes on in the US. The Chinese do not need  proctoscopes to see where they are going.  

When coupled with salt cavern storage of hydrogen and oxygen  you could store 130,000 mwh based on Liquid Air's Spindletop hydrogen storage facility (1000x Tesla's South Australia installation) or 92,000 mwh based on Phillips 66's Clemen's done (operating for 41 years now) and 84 gwh using Praxair's Moss Bluff cavern. The design solves the variability of wind and solar by using electrolyzers to balance grid load and the twin generators provide inertial mass and reactive power  that batteries do not provide.  This design needs only 3 minutes to be 60% of name plate capacity(30 min to 100%) not  4 days the way coal does nor  2 hours the way a CCGT does.

I gather no one here has been certified by NERC as grid dispatcher or by IEEE as a Power Generation and Transmission operations specialist.

Edited January 18, 2021 by nsdp
spelling and grammar