Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !

From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheelsfudge_at_gwi.net)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:27:22 -0500

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:CPKdnSV2V5WFtQLcRVn-vg@rcn.net...
> In article <u-adneKAsKd8eAbcRVn-qA@gwi.net>,
> "Tim O'Flaherty" <pinwheelsfudge@gwi.net> wrote:
> >
> ><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:t-2dnQGaFoAorAbcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> >> In article <t4qdnb1uB6lslQfcRVn-iQ@gwi.net>,
> >> "Tim O'Flaherty" <pinwheelsfudge@gwi.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MO6dnfq5qIXuAAXcRVn-iw@rcn.net...
> >> >> In article <3c4afb26.0411141814.7719122f@posting.google.com>,
> >> >> greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote:
> >> >> >alexterrell@yahoo.com (Alex Terrell) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<d81e59c9.0411140811.6eabf483@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> >> greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<3c4afb26.0411041512.6e3f4074@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> This force imbalance would reduce generator life time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm not suggesting a hundred blades- maybe a dozen (trade off sans
> >> >> >the enviro whingers)
> >> >> >I was quite surprised at the antagonism towards these projects from
> >> >> >"environmentalists"- I'm not sure what their platform is for clean
> >> >> >renewable energy,......... or just do without :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Everybody else has to do without; these whiners are more deserving
> >> >> because they're doing Good Work so everybody else has the privilege
> >> >> of being slaves to them.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's a huge fight going on here about wind farm out in the ocean.
> >> >> I just don't understand how those windmills could survive tides,
> >> >> nor'easters, hurricanes, and salt water and still provide power
> >> >> when needed the most (which is during these storms). None
> >> >> of the public rhetoric has mentioned any of this.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Rhetoric, while useful, cannot trump reality.
> >>
> >> What fucking rhetoric? I've been trying to have a discussion
> >> about the efficacy of power producing structures and reliability
> >> of these things during crucial times a.k.a. storms.
> >
> >I wasn't refering specifically to what you are saying or asking, just a
> play
> >on your use of the term above.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> > ..Nothing wrong with rhetoric BTW, just the
> >art of using words effectively.
>
> Bull***. Rhetoric is production prevention device.
>

No, rhetoric is the use of language effectively and persuasively. That is
the original meaning. If the point being made is false we could say it is
empty rhetoric or mere rhetoric but in and of itself rhetoric is, or should
not be, a pejorative term. It's simply part of communicating effectively.
Everyone who communicates uses rhetoric to a greater or lesser degree, from
Christ to Goebbels.

> >
> >
> > Have you
> >> ever been in an area where a storm takes out the power for weeks?
> >> Has this happened during the winter? Summer is bad enough even
> >> though you don't need heat or water pipe freezing prevention.
> >
> >
> >I was in Cape Breton NS during the Ice storm of '98'. We lost power for
> a
> >few days, patrs of Quebec went over a month without power. Brutal in
Jan.
> >We had a woodstove and the temp didn't get down enough to threaten the
> >plumbing, no fun though.
>
> Yep. And this is the irony of all the greenie woodenheadedness.
> They're all against oil and nuclear "pollutions" but have no
> qualms about inundating the neighbors and neighborhood with
> their wood smoke from their wood stoves; there are studies
> that have reported that wood smoke is more carcingenic than
> cigarette smoke.

I live in Maine, lots of people burn wood here, no-one seems to be
"innundated" ,as you so rhetorically posed, by their neighbors smoke,nor do
we inhale it through little tubes on a regular basis. We are however using
a carbon source that will go to the atmosphere anyways if we let the wood
rot in lieu of burning carbon that was, and would have remained, sequestered
from the atmosphere for millenium.

> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >http://www.power-technology.com/projects/blyth/
> >> >[The turbines, each of two Megawatt (2MW) capacity (enough in total to
> >> power
> >> >3,000 average households), at the time of construction were the
largest
> >> >erected offshore in the world and the first to be built in such a
> >> demanding
> >> >position, subject to the full forces of the North Sea.]
> >
> >
> >> <snip pointers>
> >>
> >> I've been on cruise ships. I'm assuming that they are constructed
> >> of the same materials that an off-shore windmill is, e.g., metal
> >> plastic and wood. I've watched the enormous daily effort that
> >> goes into maintaining the outside of those ships. A hundred
> >> windmills in the ocean with their moving parts on the outside
> >> seems to have a few problems with maintenance and MTBFs (mean
> >> time between failures).
> >
> >Other than the blades, all the moving parts are inside the nacele at the
> >top, quite roomy on these big ones.
>
> It doesn't matter. Salt air is pervasive and can creep into
> nooks, crannies. Acidity of the air around here works on the
> inside of my house.
>
> > ... Entry is at the bottom through the
> >tower.
>
> Hold the phone!!! You have to put on a diving suit to get into
> the tower?

Don't be silly, you have a door on the side, not dead bottom. The point is
you don't need a crane to access the generator or gearbox.

>
>
> >> The year of installment for your examples isn't a long time.
> >> When do the companies who install them forecast replacement?
> >> I'll bet it isn't measured in the decades.
> >
> >You'd lose that bet. 20 years plus.
>
> Has one of those turbines actually lasted 20 years?
> If so, how much of the original structure is still there?

On land yes but they haven't been offshore for that long, 11 years at Tuno
Knob, Denmark though.

>
>
> > .. Offshore turbines have one advantages
> >in that the resource, wind, is cleaner with less turbulence
>
> [emoticon scrolls up to check that the poster talked about
> ice storm, scrolls down] I have never experienced high
> winds that didn't have turbulence. The higher the wind,
> the greater the turbulence with each tiny eddy.
>

Offshore winds are moving over a flat surface. The land/water surface
upwind of a turbine has a major effect on the speed and quality of the wind
that hits it. Turbulence is induced by obstructions, buildings, trees etc.
Less obstructions means less turbulence.

> > ...so there is less
> >stress on bearings and yaw assembly ( the means of turning hub to face
the
> >wind).
>
> So now you have the hub turning. That's a big moving part that is
> on the outside.
>

The mechanism that does this is inside at the top of the tower.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> And then let's consider the manufacturing processes and
> >> infrastructure that produced the part of these windmills.
> >> In case you haven't noticed, there doesn't seem to be
> >> a longevity of this aspect of manufacturing production.
> >
> >I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here. This is a major
> >industry, not just a couple of wacky professors spending grant money.
> Here's
> >one in Denmark, 20 2MW turbines....
> >
> >http://www.power-technology.com/projects/middelgrunden/
> >
> >Here's another in Denmark, 72 2.3MW machines....
> >
> >http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/offshore.htm
> >
> > [The most recent large offshore farm is Nysted Offshore Wind Farm at
> >Rødsand built in 2003.
>
>
> Sigh! 2004-2003 is equal to one year, not 20, not 10.
> From my POV I consider this a proto-type.
>
> > ...The wind farm is located app. 10 km south of the town
> >of Nysted on Lolland and consists of 8 rows with 9 turbines each. The
> total
> >power of the 72 wind turbines each of 2.3 MW thus reaches 165,5 MW. The
> >annual electricity production of the wind farm is enough to supply
145,000
> >(Danish) households.]
> >
> >There are also offshore windfarms off Sweden, Holland and Ireland with
> many
> >more coming throughout the EU.
>
> I hear they exist. So far I haven't heard of any that have lasted
> for more than 20 years. I am assuming that they're so new that
> none of the usual post-partum reports can be done because
> they haven't been in service long enough.

Here's one from 1995...
http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/
 10 500kW machines, Tuno Knob Denmark, still in operation producing 12.5
GWh/yr. Today offshore turbines are running about 2 to 3 MW and the next
generation is in the 5MW range. If it wasn't viable it wouldn't be
attracting $billions in investment. To be sure there will be setbacks but
wind and offshore wind is going to a part of our energy future.

Regards,
Tim O