Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

[turbguy + 1,391]

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not in Europe, they aren't. Too many synchronization issues with wind AC. The inverters are targeted at any odd wind farm. Here, Infinion offering working at a deeper component level

https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/applications/industrial/wind-energy-systems/

Seem to be offering to equip the "pre-double fed" machines with conversion to DC.

"one less conductor" is a tremendously bad idea BTW, because it means you've got a "sacrificial" anode elsewhere.

Can you provide any information concerning "synchronization issues" with wind turbines? I have not seen any.  Always good to keep on top of such things.

The infineon link provides control systems for both asynchronous generators and DFIG's.  Both will work due to the application of power electronics.  Ask yourself, do you want those electronics to "handle" the FULL power output of an asynchronous generator, or only a fraction of the output of the DFIG?   Guess which one is cheaper...   Particularly when the DFIG requires no REE's.

With the advent of synthetic inertia and full VAR controls, I do not see a significant grid stability issue that would otherwise be provided by traditional FF synchronous generators   As a matter of fact, you can draw MUCH more stored inertia out of a wind turbine than you can from a conventional synchronous generator of equal rotating mass.

Edited October 7, 2021 by turbguy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Here are the real facts about what the world uses for energy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Why would you need a 40-100GW interconnect for an economy where electricity demand tops out at around 60GW an d that country has a range of electrical generation sources (Nuclear, gas, biomass, wind, hydro, biogas, waste to energy, solar) 

As previously stated the UK will have 8.8GW of interconnects by next year.

 

1. Going Electric transportation requires electricity... LOTS of it.  Roughly 25% of capacity INCREASE
2. You stated AVERAGE.  No one designs to AVERAGES, always PEAK Capacity which is 80GW, not 60GW, though this stat varies wildly when I look it up.  Total seems to be higher, but it would appear they properly(IMO) drop overall capacity due to maintenance etc.
3. Nuclear... Great, build them, but currently is ~20% and why I stated 40GW-->100GW
4. Biomass is a bad joke, may as well use coal and infrastructure already exists, may as well just pile it up for that 1 month period every winter where you get zero sun and nearly zero wind.  Want to call this biomass, sure.
5. If NG becomes persona non grata as the greenies are pushing, then winter heating of boilers etc becomes an absolutely Gargantuan electrical demand which on a cold day would equal the current electrical load all by itself.  Note, I am assuming ALL NG conversions will switch to heat pumps and NOT straight electric heat. Because by a KWH basis, 3X more NG units of power are consumed by the average UK household than electricity and NG heaters have a ~90% conversion rate.   https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/average-household-gas-and-electricity-usage
6. Redundancy/War = Economic and physical is included in case of Jacked up tariffs, embargos, and in worse case.. yup, missiles/bombs.
7. Future Growth--> Its called planning and IF you go all electric, then plastics, fertilizers, asphalt, concrete etc all have to have an ELECTRIC source.  This in effect means doubling total power consumed which before used NG/Coal/Oil as its industrial heat source.
8. In that wind lull of a month during winter high pressure event which can go back to back, you will still get ~10% of power from Wind/solar, so if one DOUBLES capacity by 2X over requirements then we are looking at 20%, Triple capacity durring said lull would be 30%, so one can argue, that instead of Gargantuan pumping stations, can cut down total Stored, by simply massively overbuilding Wind/Solar farms.  Note, I did not say decrease the Interconnect size, but rather the capacity BEHIND the interconnect.

So, saying 40-->100GW interconnect is on the EXTREME LOW end of reality.  Reality is far closer to 200GW for a couple weeks to a month when all 8 points are addressed above.  By massively over building can theoretically cut that down substantially by load shedding during say, night for some processes, so 100GW would truly be my base minimum. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

The synchronization problems are caused by.  Staatcoms etc  Mayge you should catch up on your reading at IEEE. https://spectrum.ieee.org/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-gridl, https://spectrum.ieee.org/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids, https://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/publications/technical-reports/PES_TR_7-18_0068.html and the DOE labs.   https://tcipg.org/sites/default/files/slides/2012_02-03_Dagle.pdf

https://spectrum.ieee.org/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-grid

I actually worked on that EXACT turbine-generator described in that article!

Since Cleveland had an old electric system (remember, it was an island in the old days), they built a trasmission ring around "Greater Cleveland", and added power along the ring of coal plants ad-hoc.   That worked fine, until they could no longer conform to environmental concerns, and began to shut 'em down.

That lead to voltage support issues since the ring of generators were not there to support VAR loads.

In the early 2000's (before the coal shutdowns) there was already an issue with VAR control in the downtown area (all those AC compressors being added). So much so that the closest generation operators were over-exciting to support downtown voltage.   When FirstEnergy announced they were shutting plants down, FERC said "Oh no you don't, without adding voltage support to the transmission ring".  Thus, forced conversion to sychronous condensers...

I gotta admit, they work GREAT!

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

24 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Can you provide any information concerning "synchronization issues" with wind turbines? I have not seen any.  Always good to keep on top of such things.

The infineon link provides control systems for both asynchronous generators and DFIG's.  Both will work due to the application of power electronics.  Ask yourself, do you want those electronics to "handle" the FULL power output of an asynchronous generator, or only a fraction of the output of the DFIG?   Guess which one is cheaper...   Particularly when the DFIG requires no REE's.

With the advent of synthetic inertia and full VAR controls, I do not see a significant grid stability issue that would otherwise be provided by traditional FF synchronous generators   As a matter of fact, you can draw MUCH more stored inertia out of a wind turbine than you can from a conventional synchronous generator of equal rotating mass.

I already did. Why do you think are they talking about "grid stability" yadda yadda?

It provides components for both the control boxes and inverters. Here is your typical architecture of a small windfarm.

In practical terms, does the control box need to be able to pass through about the 1/3 of the power rating and the inverter box all of it, of course. But than again, so does the controller for a better washing machine (about 1/3)

Look, talk is cheap. The US grid hasn't really been all that resilient even before the advent of renewables. Have you ever heard about a blackout in Russia/USSR?

[turbguy + 1,391]

3 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

"one less conductor" is a tremendously bad idea BTW, because it means you've got a "sacrificial" anode elsewhere.

I was referring to bipolar undersea cabling, not monopole cabling.

Two cables, instead of three.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

7 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Most of the wind turbines are actually DC already, or at least wind turbine parks are.

Hell no they are not.  Vast majority of HAWT's are AC with phase choppers for frequency control along with quick pitch control and rotation of the power train due to wind fluctuations.  There are a RARE few who have PMDC generators and the bigger guys ARE going to PMDC so they can GET RID of the pitch control mechanism requirements for quick reaction.  This will drastically cut down cost of the big wind turbines.  Likewise PMDC technically allows one to get rid of the gearbox as well.  I will note that, to my knowledge, only a couple test whirlybirds have actually tried this. 

PS: Welcome to the site.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

6 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I already did. Why do you think are they talking about "grid stability" yadda yadda?

 The US grid hasn't really been all that resilient even before the advent of renewables. Have you ever heard about a blackout in Russia/USSR?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one reports it does it make a sound? 🙄

[turbguy + 1,391]

4 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I already did. Why do you think are they talking about "grid stability" yadda yadda?

It provides components for both the control boxes and inverters. Here is your typical architecture of a small windfarm.

Why do you think those "grid stability issues" are still there?

With modern designs, they are not.

Early wind farms utilized induction generators.  Cheap, grid excited, single speed, and actually consumed mucho VARS, with zero VAR control. 

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 minutes ago, turbguy said:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-grid

I actually worked on that EXACT turbine-generator described in that article!

Since Cleveland had an old electric system (remember, it was an island in the old days), they built a trasmission ring around "Greater Cleveland", and added power along the ring of coal plants ad-hoc.   That worked fine, until they could no longer conform to environmental concerns, and began to shut 'em down.

That lead to voltage support issues since the ring of generators were not there to support VAR loads.

In the early 2000's (before the coal shutdowns) there was already an issue with VAR control in the downtown area (all those AC compressors being added). So much so that the closest generation operators were over-exciting to support downtown voltage.   When FirstEnergy announced they were shutting plants down, FERC said "Oh no you don't, without adding voltage support to the transmission ring".  Thus, forced conversion to sychronous condensers...

I gotta admit, they work GREAT!

Good for you. How is that supposed to be a recipe for everyone, if you need to start with a coal plant semi-mothballed just the right way?

Where I come from (Russia) the coal burners are set up to mostly produce heat, not electricity, for example.

I am sure this does work. But would be quite a bit more expensive, if you were to build them anew. Which your article actually does say...

[turbguy + 1,391]

5 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Good for you. How is that supposed to be a recipe for everyone, if you need to start with a coal plant semi-mothballed just the right way?

Where I come from (Russia) the coal burners are set up to mostly produce heat, not electricity, for example.

I am sure this does work. But would be quite a bit more expensive, if you were to build them anew. Which your article actually does say...

I assume Russia utilizes CHAP systems, which actually are a very efficient system. 

A new synchronous condenser ain't cheap, particularly when you have just about everything you already need in a retired coal plant. 

Including the roof, service water, potable water, hydrogen, showers and bathrooms.

Edited October 7, 2021 by turbguy

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

Why do you think those "grid stability issues" are still there?

With modern designs, they are not.

Early wind farms utilized induction generators.  Cheap, grid excited, single speed, and actually consumed mucho VARS, with zero VAR control. 

 

Let me speak in my capacity of a bunk scientist here. I don't believe in reactance / reactive power being a thing. You start multiplying complex phasors, you get imaginary results 1/2 the time. But those imaginary watts are quite real, as in can be used productively (and, unfortunately, metered

Edited October 7, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[turbguy + 1,391]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Let me speak as a bunk scientist. I don't believe in reactance / reactive power being a thing. You start multiplying complex phasors, you get imaginary results 1/2 the time. But those imaginary watts are quite real, as in can be used productively (and, unfortunately, metered

May I refer you to a true genius.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I assume Russia utilizes CHAP systems, which actually are a very efficient system. 

A new synchronous condenser ain't cheap, particularly when you have just about everything you already need in a retired coal plant. 

Including the roof, service water, potable water, hydrogen, showers and bathrooms.

Nope. Not the smaller ones. Only the ones large enough to "hold hands" with nukes.

You problem is that most of your engineers are not analog EEs, but EECS twerps. The minute you look away from these guys, they'll throw out all the moving parts

[turbguy + 1,391]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Nope. Not the smaller ones. Only the ones large enough to "hold hands" with nukes.

You problem is that most of your engineers are not analog EEs, but EECS twerps. The minute you look away from these guys, they'll throw out all the moving parts

I love moving parts!  Particularly the mechanical hydraulic governors.

It's getting soaked again and again in "turbine oil light" that got to me...

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

May I refer you to a true genius.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz

I have no need for any of this, beyond stopping my electrical meter. Which I already do

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I have no need for any of this, beyond stopping my electrical meter. Which I already do

 

"Moving Parts"?

Even they are solid state, now.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Moving Parts"?

Even they are solid state, now.

I've got a proper Nazi "Schaltung4000" Ferrari meter, which engages an eddy current brake (device shared with ICE bullet train) if you try to rewind it. Delightfully, there is some EU directive now, which mandates that all electrical meters be rewindable.

I reckon, the EU has arrived into the same transcendent category Uncle Sam has already been in for a while, legislating against the laws of nature.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

26 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one reports it does it make a sound? 🙄

it might make a light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

34 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hell no they are not.  Vast majority of HAWT's are AC with phase choppers for frequency control along with quick pitch control and rotation of the power train due to wind fluctuations.  There are a RARE few who have PMDC generators and the bigger guys ARE going to PMDC so they can GET RID of the pitch control mechanism requirements for quick reaction.  This will drastically cut down cost of the big wind turbines.  Likewise PMDC technically allows one to get rid of the gearbox as well.  I will note that, to my knowledge, only a couple test whirlybirds have actually tried this. 

PS: Welcome to the site.

Here we go. Another "grid stability issue" I didn't know about.

Areva Wind/ABB promo we discussed elsewhere on this thread claims to have shipped ~80 PMDC rigs just from that coproduction. Those be offshore variety though.

[turbguy + 1,391]

48 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hell no they are not.  Vast majority of HAWT's are AC with phase choppers for frequency control along with quick pitch control and rotation of the power train due to wind fluctuations.  There are a RARE few who have PMDC generators and the bigger guys ARE going to PMDC so they can GET RID of the pitch control mechanism requirements for quick reaction.  This will drastically cut down cost of the big wind turbines.  Likewise PMDC technically allows one to get rid of the gearbox as well.  I will note that, to my knowledge, only a couple test whirlybirds have actually tried this. 

PS: Welcome to the site.

Getting rid of the gearbox is probably one of the greatest improvements to Wind Turbine reliability you could ask for.

Those PM generators do use a lot poles and a lot of of REE's though, no?

And reducing pitch control reaction time ain't a bad idea, either. Particularly with blades that are exceeding 106 meters long!

It's gotta look like a hydro generator, only with a horizontal axis.

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

59 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I love moving parts!  Particularly the mechanical hydraulic governors.

It's getting soaked again and again in "turbine oil light" that got to me...

Perhaps now you may understand never give a engineer a open check book.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1. Going Electric transportation requires electricity... LOTS of it.  Roughly 25% of capacity INCREASE
2. You stated AVERAGE.  No one designs to AVERAGES, always PEAK Capacity which is 80GW, not 60GW, though this stat varies wildly when I look it up.  Total seems to be higher, but it would appear they properly(IMO) drop overall capacity due to maintenance etc.
3. Nuclear... Great, build them, but currently is ~20% and why I stated 40GW-->100GW
4. Biomass is a bad joke, may as well use coal and infrastructure already exists, may as well just pile it up for that 1 month period every winter where you get zero sun and nearly zero wind.  Want to call this biomass, sure.
5. If NG becomes persona non grata as the greenies are pushing, then winter heating of boilers etc becomes an absolutely Gargantuan electrical demand which on a cold day would equal the current electrical load all by itself.  Note, I am assuming ALL NG conversions will switch to heat pumps and NOT straight electric heat. Because by a KWH basis, 3X more NG units of power are consumed by the average UK household than electricity and NG heaters have a ~90% conversion rate.   https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/average-household-gas-and-electricity-usage
6. Redundancy/War = Economic and physical is included in case of Jacked up tariffs, embargos, and in worse case.. yup, missiles/bombs.
7. Future Growth--> Its called planning and IF you go all electric, then plastics, fertilizers, asphalt, concrete etc all have to have an ELECTRIC source.  This in effect means doubling total power consumed which before used NG/Coal/Oil as its industrial heat source.
8. In that wind lull of a month during winter high pressure event which can go back to back, you will still get ~10% of power from Wind/solar, so if one DOUBLES capacity by 2X over requirements then we are looking at 20%, Triple capacity durring said lull would be 30%, so one can argue, that instead of Gargantuan pumping stations, can cut down total Stored, by simply massively overbuilding Wind/Solar farms.  Note, I did not say decrease the Interconnect size, but rather the capacity BEHIND the interconnect.

So, saying 40-->100GW interconnect is on the EXTREME LOW end of reality.  Reality is far closer to 200GW for a couple weeks to a month when all 8 points are addressed above.  By massively over building can theoretically cut that down substantially by load shedding during say, night for some processes, so 100GW would truly be my base minimum. 

I did set the interconnector news in  the context of 'one bright spot'. 

I was discussing the here and now and a 1400MW interconnector accessing Norways Blasjo complex couldn't have come at a better time. Its operating flat out in test phase at 700MW. This will be up to 1400MW by January.

The pipeline of new offshore wind farms is as follows

2022 - 3.8GW

2023 - 3.9GW

2024 - 2.9GW

2025 - 2.5GW

2027-2030 - 3.6GW

Edited October 7, 2021 by NickW

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

9 hours ago, turbguy said:

For OFFSHORE machines DC makes sense, since transmission is easier and cheaper with no reactive issues to deal with (and one less conductor with minimal "skin" effects).

LAND-BASED wind machines are synchronous AC machines

Most major wind farms in Europe are now offshore as we just dont have the land to build them and of course NIMBY.

Next will be floating wind farms in deep water (which are already being built) so DC will be the prevailing type.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Whatever is practical and proven is needed. Coal is the dirtiest option so natural gas is the best bet for the long term or when renewables can take over. That will be decades away if we are talking global solutions. Nuclear may work for Asia but Americans and Europeans will not settle for it IMHO. The costs always skyrocket and the time to meet government regulations is incredible. The cost benefit ratio over the long term is very bad when you consider guarding all of the nuclear waste for the rest of the lifespan of mankind. 

See my topic on Nuclear Plants

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

No rebates or government support. All the governments are broke. Just let the free markets pick the winners. Europe has totally screwed themselves and Biden is now doing the same thing to America, or at least is trying. He is sadly misinformed or just wants to bankrupt America so the socialist Demoncrats cant take total control. I actually think he is just a puppet of the left wing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy to destroy our economy. This is the leftists real plan to take over for good. 

https://conduitforaction.org/the-cloward-piven-strategy-orchestrating-a-crisis-so-government-can-solve-it/

The only obstacle to permanent disposal of  high grade nuclear waste is political. Low level stuff can just be isolated and left to decay. 

technical answer - find a an area of stable rock and drill a big hole several hundred meters deep. Vitrify the nuc waste in glass. Encase in Copper cask. Embed cask in hole in bentonite clay.