Wind droughts

[specinho + 439]

On 10/26/2022 at 5:19 AM, NickW said:

Yes

Cut in wind speed is usually around 3  M/S (10.5km/h). Production tops out at 8-12 M/S second depending on model. 

2mw-platform | GE Renewable Energy

Also bear in mind the wind turbines will be a lot higher up than the monitoring stations for local wind speeds - this is why they normally put up a test tower before building a farm. 

speed of a bicycle is roughly there? Recalled something i did as a kid...... pressed dynamo onto the front tire and cycled to get light.. The faster i cycled, the brighter the light. Not too sure if this observation is still correct? If it is, the slower the speed of wind, the lower the output?

Mentioned something before regarding the height of wind turbine and availability of wind. Roughly quote it here for your reference:

if one climbs up a hill, the air would likely be still beyond 30 to 50 meters of height.

Although the availability of wind is generally affected by many factors e.g. temperature difference between two areas or bodies of land mass e.g. coastal and high land; availability of trees etc, and if we can feel the wind at our common heights of below 2 meters, the general height of turbines might still be much too high to capture the wind efficiently?

[specinho + 439]

 

On 10/25/2022 at 2:46 AM, NickW said:

Specific sites.

From Portugal to Finland, from Ireland to Greece daily contributions to the European grid haven't fallen below 7% in the last year. 

The data is aggregated from each countries declared figures. 

The last comment is a strawman because i made no argument that wind was providing all of Europes energy needs but simply refuting your no wind in the whole of Europe for 2 weeks hokum. 

 

On 10/25/2022 at 4:29 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Its not 2 weeks.  It is 2 weeks followed by a little followed by another 2 weeks of next to nothing in January continent wide.  And the only places that count are in the North Sea/Baltic.  No one else can do wind as they do not HAVE wind. 

this reply does not intend to take side but to put both comments into perspective:

 

 

 

Not sure if these info from a text book called "our changing world", published in the 1969 would be helpful but here................

First image shows current and wind of the world.

Pardon me, I do not know the details but generally, hot air rises, replaced by cold air to form wind. Likewise, warmth water diffuses or flows towards colder water to form current.

The second image shows population of the world back then and the third image shows wheat production of the world back then.

Population density and agricultural density warm up the continent. Temperature difference between the land and the sea reduced.

We could probably deduce these:

 

1. Summer

 

-

hot

tropical region vs

hot  

 

temperate region --------> no wind

 

2. winter -

a) hot tropical region vs cold temperate region --------> current + wind

b) cold tropical region ( e.g. temperature dampen by monsoon), vs cold temperate region ------> no or mild wind

c) warmth

 

tropical region vs  warmth

 

temperate region (buffered by the sea) ------> no or mild wind

 

3. Spring and may be autumn - breezy

- generated probably more by localized circulation e,g, contrasting surface temperature of melting ice or cooler riverine area vs warmer infrastructure or concreted area, barren land etc....

 

Therefore, regional topography ( availability of hill/ mountain, river, sea etc), development and temperature affect the availability of global wind and current. Density of population and activities now, in 2022, might be much more than in the 70s world wide. No wind or mild wind condition mentioned might not be uncommon. Low fishery yield could also be expected.

Although locally, there could be sea breeze and land breeze, development might have changed the pattern and predictability of direction, frequency, location etc.

( Mentioned these in a presentation called "neglected signs of climate change" during a forum. All these signs might have not been noticed, mentioned nor researched any where else. For example, Sea breeze normally happens during the day from the sea to the land as land gets hotter during the day. Development has reversed this pattern i.e. heat trapped on land can not dissipate fast enough ------> colder air blown from the sea to the land  or no wind at all at the coast. In another words, sea breeze is happening at night, sometimes).........

Shall wind farm is onshore on the continent, this phenomenon could be bringing negative impact. Offshore, not sure..........

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by specinho

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

speed of a bicycle is roughly there? Recalled something i did as a kid...... pressed dynamo onto the front tire and cycled to get light.. The faster i cycled, the brighter the light. Not too sure if this observation is still correct? If it is, the slower the speed of wind, the lower the output?

Mentioned something before regarding the height of wind turbine and availability of wind. Roughly quote it here for your reference:

if one climbs up a hill, the air would likely be still beyond 30 to 50 meters of height.

Although the availability of wind is generally affected by many factors e.g. temperature difference between two areas or bodies of land mass e.g. coastal and high land; availability of trees etc, and if we can feel the wind at our common heights of below 2 meters, the general height of turbines might still be much too high to capture the wind efficiently?

No - wind speeds get higher as you move away from the ground. Also turbulence reduces. 

Look at how average wind speeds go up as you change the height above the ground. 

Global Wind Atlas

Where I live they go from about 4.5m/s to 9.8m/s at 200m 

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

the general height of turbines might still be much too high to capture the wind efficiently?

Do you realise the height of a lot of wind turbines, especially offshore?

GE's Haliade X is one of the targest, trust me at that height theres generally a lot of wind in the North Sea.

 

Hornsea 2 (1.3GW) has recently become the largest offshore wind farm in the world overtaking Hornsea 1 (1.2GW)

Hornsea 2 turbines are approximately 200M tall to the top of the blade and are 20% more efficient than Hornsea 1 turbines as they are 8MW as opposed to 7MW.

Work on Hornsea 3 (2.4GW) has already begun.

https://hornseaproject3.co.uk/about-the-project#project-timeline-december-2020

Edited October 28, 2022 by Rob Plant

[specinho + 439]

On 10/28/2022 at 4:39 PM, NickW said:

No - wind speeds get higher as you move away from the ground. Also turbulence reduces. 

Look at how average wind speeds go up as you change the height above the ground. 

Global Wind Atlas

Where I live they go from about 4.5m/s to 9.8m/s at 200m 

not sure when we say "wind speeds get higher with altitude" refers to " less obstacle away from the ground increases wind speed"?

If wind is formed by movement of air i.e. a cycle where hotter air that rises is replaced  by cooler air that usually flows lower (....... cooler air is generally heavier as the molecules are closer or denser or moister),  wind speed hence, might be determined by temperature differences between the meeting air and where they will meet, not altitude?

If not mistaken, for examples,

a) between concrete heat that rises and cold air blown from the sea, fast wind formed near to the concrete ground; and

b) if air from the sea is not too cold but warmth, or the concrete is not too hot, the wind formed would be milder in speed and felt higher above the concrete ground.......

Your observation is probably not altitude directed but temperature difference? Frequency would confirm it?

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by specinho

[NickW + 2,714]

18 hours ago, specinho said:

not sure when we say "wind speeds get higher with altitude" refers to " less obstacle away from the ground increases wind speed"?

If wind is formed by movement of air i.e. a cycle where hotter air that rises is replaced  by cooler air that usually flows lower (....... cooler air is generally heavier as the molecules are closer or denser or moister),  wind speed hence, might be determined by temperature differences between the meeting air and where they will meet, not altitude?

If not mistaken, for examples,

a) between concrete heat that rises and cold air blown from the sea, fast wind formed near to the concrete ground; and

b) if air from the sea is not too cold but warmth, or the concrete is not too hot, the wind formed would be milder in speed and felt higher above the concrete ground.......

Your observation is probably not altitude directed but temperature difference? Frequency would confirm it?

 

The further you move from the ground surface the faster winds generally get as the effect of shadowing by natural and artificial structures is reduced. There is also less turbulence. 

The examples you give are driven by convection currents and are very local.

[specinho + 439]

On 10/30/2022 at 7:26 PM, NickW said:

The further you move from the ground surface the faster winds generally get as the effect of shadowing by natural and artificial structures is reduced. There is also less turbulence. 

The examples you give are driven by convection currents and are very local.

would like to illustrate what we are discussing.......

If our assumption is fast wind normally formed or available above those buildings and obstacle, we might need to consider this:

as the moving cold air picks up heat from the buildings and land masses, it reduces its strength. There is a high chance of ending up no wind beyond a certain distance from the source of cold front air.....disregard of height.........

Not sure if we could call convection cycle a localized event as the wind belt system of the world is also driven by it. As long as there is a difference between temperature of two places ( e.g. polar zone vs equator; water zone vs land masses etc), there will be it.........locally and globally......perhaps.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by specinho

[NickW + 2,714]

27 minutes ago, specinho said:

would like to illustrate what we are discussing.......

If our assumption is fast wind normally formed or available above those buildings and obstacle, we might need to consider this:

as the moving cold air picks up heat from the buildings and land masses, it reduces its strength. There is a high chance of ending up no wind beyond a certain distance from the source of cold front air.....disregard of height.........

Not sure if we could call convection cycle a localized event as the wind belt system of the world is also driven by it. As long as there is a difference between temperature of two places, there will be it.........locally and globally......perhaps.

 

 

 

 

Give the crack / meth pipe a rest if I were you. 

[specinho + 439]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Give the crack / meth pipe a rest if I were you. 

cocaine/ methamphetamine pipe? Those are always resting, day and night, until they meet you and your friends, yes?

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:20 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Let me know how many of those were built WITHOUT government subsidy.  Oh right: Zero of them. 

Yes, politico power hungry douche's can idiotically place government subsidized whirly fans all over the place in the name of energy independence.   Economics are nowhere to be found.

How many nuclear, coal and gas power plants were built without subsidy? Zero of them. They always get the power grid connection for free. Just as wind does. In Europe, the last 3 years, only subsidy free wind turbines have been built (except for the grid connection). They even have to start paying windfall taxes. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

17 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

How many nuclear, coal and gas power plants were built without subsidy? Zero of them. They always get the power grid connection for free. Just as wind does. In Europe, the last 3 years, only subsidy free wind turbines have been built (except for the grid connection). They even have to start paying windfall taxes. 

Coal/gas, grid connection is not free, nor do any of those plants get gov subsidy when built.  Nuclear... yes, you have a point. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Coal/gas, grid connection is not free, nor do any of those plants get gov subsidy when built.  Nuclear... yes, you have a point. 

Nowhere in Europe, for any of the original nor newly built power plants, did the power plant pay upfront for the construction nor adaptation of the power grid. I couldn't find any examples of this in North America either. There is a -typically- monthly fee that is paid by energy producers, distributors and consumers, but this holds for any power source, regardless of being renewable, nuclear or ff. 

In Asia and Africa, most plants are government owned, so there subsidy is implicit.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:40 AM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

How many nuclear, coal and gas power plants were built without subsidy? Zero of them. They always get the power grid connection for free. Just as wind does. In Europe, the last 3 years, only subsidy free wind turbines have been built (except for the grid connection). They even have to start paying windfall taxes. 

To add to that large numbers of Refineries in North America were built or expanded in WW1 &  WW2 using Govt money. Many in Europe post WW2 were built as Govt enterprises or with significant Govt support  (BP and its predecessors, ENI, Total etc) 

[lexington green + 22]

On 10/5/2022 at 7:06 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Give you a hint in life and how things work as you clearly are a dreamer with zero real life experience in the field:

No one is allowed to design nuclear reactors and build one without the government bureaucrats ignorant power hungry stupid shits in the way sign off on the smallest screw.  Therefore you have ignorant arrogant idiot stupid shits with a degree from idiot U who are anti nuclear greenpeace activists with a BS in humantitties in charge of all things nuclear.  They do not give one damn about power generated.  They do not give one shit about nuclear waste.  They do not give one shit about improved safety.  They do not give one shit about scalability/throttling/on-off potential.  All the stupid ignorant bureaucrat activists care about is KEEPING their jobs and the only way they KEEP their jobs is by fulfilling the NO PROLIFERATION portion.  No engineer is allowed close.  No physicist is allowed anywhere near. 

We already had the solution in the 60's/70's to the nuclear waste problem.  Liquid Fluoride salt breeder reactors.  But it breeds Plutonium, but eats it quickly along with all the daughter products except some very short lived ones with the longest was a Cesium one with a 70 year half life creating less than 5% the waste.  Would allow us to use 100% of all Uranium on earth, not just 0.03% of the  Uranium on earth and Thorium as well.  Oh yes, self regulating too due to how a low breeder works in both temperature and nucleation. 

It got axed naturally by stupid shit politicians when they were half a step from completion at Oakridge.   Military does not want them as it does not produce Fissile Uranium and the Plutonium was next to impossible to extract for making nuclear bombs(they did hope to use it for propulsion though but was not dual purpose). 

There is the basic reality of this world. 

I never claimed to have experience 'in the field'.   In the post TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima world, regulation and approval processes certainly aren't going to get pared.  Regardless of all all the frustrating history you clearly are upset about,  if someone can demonstrate a safe, low waste design that is cost effective, no politicians will be able to spike it.   Not everything has to originate from or be proven at Oak Ridge, TN. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 12/1/2022 at 4:00 AM, lexington green said:

Not everything has to originate from or be proven at Oak Ridge, TN. 

Which part of NO ONE IS ALLOWED to do anything R&D in nuclear in USA without government approval first do you not understand???  You have ZERO ability to gain access to the Uranium, be it 232 or 238, let alone Plutonium

Yes, EVERYTHING for a new reactor design MUST start at the government institutions in the USA. The only exception are robotics operating on existing nuclear designs or their slight modifications such as CANDU reactor. 

[TailingsPond + 461]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Which part of NO ONE IS ALLOWED to do anything R&D in nuclear in USA without government approval first do you not understand???  You have ZERO ability to gain access to the Uranium, be it 232 or 238, let alone Plutonium

Yes, EVERYTHING for a new reactor design MUST start at the government institutions in the USA. The only exception are robotics operating on existing nuclear designs or their slight modifications such as CANDU reactor. 

I think you are mistaken on this.  Yes, to do significant research you will need permits from gov't and be subjected to some monitoring but the research can be independent.

Hospitals and non-destructive testing companies, etc. have access to radioisotopes.

Heck, you can buy a little uranium online

https://luciteria.com/elements-for-sale/buy-uranium

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:46 PM, TailingsPond said:

I think you are mistaken on this.  Yes, to do significant research you will need permits from gov't and be subjected to some monitoring but the research can be independent.

Hospitals and non-destructive testing companies, etc. have access to radioisotopes.

Heck, you can buy a little uranium online

https://luciteria.com/elements-for-sale/buy-uranium

Don't quit your day job.  Anyone can get their hands on U235... which is USELESS unless you have a breeder reactor started with U238, U233, or Plutonium which NO ONE can touch, let alone design a new reactor without being under the authority, not permits, under authority of the USA government or in your case, Canada's government or any other nation territory in this world of ours.

[TailingsPond + 461]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Don't quit your day job.  Anyone can get their hands on U235... which is USELESS unless you have a breeder reactor started with U238, U233, or Plutonium which NO ONE can touch, let alone design a new reactor without being under the authority, not permits, under authority of the USA government or in your case, Canada's government or any other nation territory in this world of ours.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part070/index.html

stfu.  I've been approved for use of unsealed Ra226 and Ba133.  Far more experience than you in this area.

Edited December 11, 2022 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 12/11/2022 at 2:40 PM, TailingsPond said:

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part070/index.html

stfu.  I've been approved for use of unsealed Ra226 and Ba133.  Far more experience than you in this area.

And EVERY home has radioactive Cesium in it as well and everybody has radioactive C14 in their bodies along with a multitude of other radioactive isotopes... It means NOTHING as you cannot make a reactor with what you stupidly typed. 

Apparently you have no clue what a nuclear reactor is.  << Call me; not surprised >>

Got a bigger shovel to dig deeper? 

[TailingsPond + 461]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

It means NOTHING as you cannot make a reactor with what you stupidly typed. 

 

Fact is most reactors are privately owned.

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

GE, and Westinghouse do reactor research. Numerous other companies operate plants (so obviously they have enough access to nuc fuel.)

Your beliefs do not matter, there is loads of evidence that it can be done privately.

Edited December 14, 2022 by TailingsPond