24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Yep,

keep pumping................................

but everyone, please look the other way at all our cool new technology.!


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,667
I
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
I
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,667
One of these days, they will solve the mysteries of controlled fusion reaction. And then the world will run on electricity and Hydrogen. But I doubt it will happen within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.


People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
R
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Pappy348
So, how many would it take to power say, Kalifornica? 2000?

With the Dem plans to eliminate fossil fuels, they better start saving their pennies. On the other hand, if the real plan is as I suspect to just tax our asses off to re-distribute wealth to the third world and Al Gore, they can just buy a couple for show.


Someone will have to do the math, but the Danes are planning to build an island to support their off shore wind farms, with the goal of powering the entire country:

https://awaken.com/2021/02/denmark-...r-wind-farms-to-power-the-whole-country/

"Denmark To Build Artificial Island For Wind Farms To Power The Whole Country

AFP reports that Denmark’s parliament has just committed to building an artificial island off its shores that will be home to hundreds of huge wind turbines…

It is the largest construction project in Denmark’s history, and will be as big as 80 football fields. It will be protected on three sides by an enormous sea wall and will have a harbor to receive ships. Some of the wind energy will be stored as hydrogen, which can be liquefied and shipped like liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The immediate goal is to generate 3 gigawatts, which would power half of Denmark’s buildings (its population is 6 million). The project could be scaled up to 10 gigawatts, which would provide electricity to all of Denmark and would allow 4 gigs to be exported to neighbors such as Germany. The project will begin in 2026 and will be finished between 2030 and 2033."


Building an island won't make much of a carbon footprint, I'm sure.


FJB & FJT
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
Dutch Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
Originally Posted by Raeford
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Pappy348
So, how many would it take to power say, Kalifornica? 2000?

With the Dem plans to eliminate fossil fuels, they better start saving their pennies. On the other hand, if the real plan is as I suspect to just tax our asses off to re-distribute wealth to the third world and Al Gore, they can just buy a couple for show.


Someone will have to do the math, but the Danes are planning to build an island to support their off shore wind farms, with the goal of powering the entire country:

https://awaken.com/2021/02/denmark-...r-wind-farms-to-power-the-whole-country/

"Denmark To Build Artificial Island For Wind Farms To Power The Whole Country

AFP reports that Denmark’s parliament has just committed to building an artificial island off its shores that will be home to hundreds of huge wind turbines…

It is the largest construction project in Denmark’s history, and will be as big as 80 football fields. It will be protected on three sides by an enormous sea wall and will have a harbor to receive ships. Some of the wind energy will be stored as hydrogen, which can be liquefied and shipped like liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The immediate goal is to generate 3 gigawatts, which would power half of Denmark’s buildings (its population is 6 million). The project could be scaled up to 10 gigawatts, which would provide electricity to all of Denmark and would allow 4 gigs to be exported to neighbors such as Germany. The project will begin in 2026 and will be finished between 2030 and 2033."


Building an island won't make much of a carbon footprint, I'm sure.


You should apply for a grant to study the matter......


Sic Semper Tyrannis
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
One of these days, they will solve the mysteries of controlled fusion reaction. And then the world will run on electricity and Hydrogen. But I doubt it will happen within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.

As soon as my people from "above" release the plans.

Problem is, we're still not sure if we should annihilate all humans first, then just use the planet as our own.


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
IC B2

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by Remsen
When I was working at the last big law firm I'll ever work at, we represented Vestas. It's a good company, but there are scams galore going on with the power purchase agreements and development deals that are part of the wind industry. Another lawyer at the firm ended up making many millions of dollars by going in house at one of the companies that buy and deploy the wind turbines, even though these things rarely produced the kind of output claimed. What they do is they sell off various parts of the wind projects, often for tax credits, and never really have to live up to the claimed energy production numbers.

It's legal, but like many things that are legal it stinks. The people who make the money are taking it from ratepayers and taxpayers without providing much in exchange.


Thanks for this. That's a nice explanation of one of the reasons why you can't believe anything you're told about the actual cost of renewable energy. A few years back I was privy to an analysis of some renewables proposals pricing. Basically, if you manipulate the residual or salvage value of the project after the 20 years or so of the PPA, you can justify any price you want. No idea how they get away with this but some of the numbers seemed pretty unrealistic. Honestly, I'm not convinced the majority of these projects are even intended primarily to make money over the long run, but that's another discussion.

Regarding capacity, the numbers in the OP are claiming a capacity factor for this new turbine HALF AGAIN as much as the Danish offshore fields are currently producing. Barring an explanation of how they hope to achieve that performance, that is just way beyond optimistic.

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
R
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
R
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59,055
Originally Posted by Dutch
Rotor diameter 774 feet, and a wind swept area of 11 acres. That's a big machine.

https://electrek.co/2021/02/10/vestas-gm-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-turbine/


"Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas today announced the launch of its new offshore wind turbine – the V236-15.0MW. It replaces US conglomerate GE’s 14MW Haliade-X as having the distinction of being the world’s largest offshore wind turbine.

A comparison

The V236-15.0MW will have will have a rotor diameter of 774 feet (236 meters) and a wind-swept area of 470,845 square feet (43,743 square meters).

In comparison, GE’s Haliade-X has a rotor diameter of 722 feet (220 meters) and a wind-swept area of 409,168 square feet (38,013 square meters).

......

The Vestas V236-15.0MW boosts wind energy production to around 80 GWh/year, enough to power around 20,000 European households and save more than 38,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of removing 25,000 passenger cars from the road annually. "
How much carbon dioxide and energy was required to BUILD this monstrosity?? Lifespan? Maintenance cost?

Bah........


Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69
Pro-Constitution.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by Dutch
Rotor diameter 774 feet, and a wind swept area of 11 acres. That's a big machine.

https://electrek.co/2021/02/10/vestas-gm-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-turbine/


"Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas today announced the launch of its new offshore wind turbine – the V236-15.0MW. It replaces US conglomerate GE’s 14MW Haliade-X as having the distinction of being the world’s largest offshore wind turbine.

A comparison

The V236-15.0MW will have will have a rotor diameter of 774 feet (236 meters) and a wind-swept area of 470,845 square feet (43,743 square meters).

In comparison, GE’s Haliade-X has a rotor diameter of 722 feet (220 meters) and a wind-swept area of 409,168 square feet (38,013 square meters).

......

The Vestas V236-15.0MW boosts wind energy production to around 80 GWh/year, enough to power around 20,000 European households and save more than 38,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of removing 25,000 passenger cars from the road annually. "
How much carbon dioxide and energy was required to BUILD this monstrosity?? Lifespan? Maintenance cost?

Bah........


The machinery to build them and maintain them run on gay european tears. That is a bottomless well.


MAGA
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,120
W
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,120
Company is proposing to use off shore turbines in a new wind farm up here and folks don't like it at all, except for the landowners.

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 16,366
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 16,366
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
One of these days, they will solve the mysteries of controlled fusion reaction. And then the world will run on electricity and Hydrogen. But I doubt it will happen within the lifetime of anyone posting on this board.

Good thing DJT penned an EO for small reactors..


-OMotS



"If memory serves fails me..."
Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
IC B3

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
Dutch Offline OP
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,780
Originally Posted by RufusG
Originally Posted by Remsen
When I was working at the last big law firm I'll ever work at, we represented Vestas. It's a good company, but there are scams galore going on with the power purchase agreements and development deals that are part of the wind industry. Another lawyer at the firm ended up making many millions of dollars by going in house at one of the companies that buy and deploy the wind turbines, even though these things rarely produced the kind of output claimed. What they do is they sell off various parts of the wind projects, often for tax credits, and never really have to live up to the claimed energy production numbers.

It's legal, but like many things that are legal it stinks. The people who make the money are taking it from ratepayers and taxpayers without providing much in exchange.


Thanks for this. That's a nice explanation of one of the reasons why you can't believe anything you're told about the actual cost of renewable energy. A few years back I was privy to an analysis of some renewables proposals pricing. Basically, if you manipulate the residual or salvage value of the project after the 20 years or so of the PPA, you can justify any price you want. No idea how they get away with this but some of the numbers seemed pretty unrealistic. Honestly, I'm not convinced the majority of these projects are even intended primarily to make money over the long run, but that's another discussion.

Regarding capacity, the numbers in the OP are claiming a capacity factor for this new turbine HALF AGAIN as much as the Danish offshore fields are currently producing. Barring an explanation of how they hope to achieve that performance, that is just way beyond optimistic.


In all fairness, that applies to all projects, including fossil fuels. The things you mention, plus things like externalization of reclamation costs, etc, makes the economics a barrel of fish hooks.


Sic Semper Tyrannis
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
R
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Raeford
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Pappy348
So, how many would it take to power say, Kalifornica? 2000?

With the Dem plans to eliminate fossil fuels, they better start saving their pennies. On the other hand, if the real plan is as I suspect to just tax our asses off to re-distribute wealth to the third world and Al Gore, they can just buy a couple for show.


Someone will have to do the math, but the Danes are planning to build an island to support their off shore wind farms, with the goal of powering the entire country:

https://awaken.com/2021/02/denmark-...r-wind-farms-to-power-the-whole-country/

"Denmark To Build Artificial Island For Wind Farms To Power The Whole Country

AFP reports that Denmark’s parliament has just committed to building an artificial island off its shores that will be home to hundreds of huge wind turbines…

It is the largest construction project in Denmark’s history, and will be as big as 80 football fields. It will be protected on three sides by an enormous sea wall and will have a harbor to receive ships. Some of the wind energy will be stored as hydrogen, which can be liquefied and shipped like liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The immediate goal is to generate 3 gigawatts, which would power half of Denmark’s buildings (its population is 6 million). The project could be scaled up to 10 gigawatts, which would provide electricity to all of Denmark and would allow 4 gigs to be exported to neighbors such as Germany. The project will begin in 2026 and will be finished between 2030 and 2033."


Building an island won't make much of a carbon footprint, I'm sure.


You should apply for a grant to study the matter......

I suppose burning 20 years worth of fossil fuels to build a 'green island' makes sense to some.


FJB & FJT
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 40,379
DMc Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 40,379
Seems to me the whole wind and solar energy premise was to make it available to individuals, cutting the need to be paired to energy companies. It was soon realized the cost savings was non-existent, thus marketing energy related products became a deceptive paradox. (Except to Prius drivers - pun intended) If it doesn't work on a smaller scale it won't work elsewhere. (i.e. Lib Think - It's the ideology man)


Make Gitmo Great Again!!
Who gave the order to stop counting votes in the swing states on the night of November 3/4, 2020?
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................

water.

What a novel idea.


Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient.

So, how does that compare to the efficiency of transcontinental electrical transmission lines?


The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses equaled about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2015 through 2019.


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,734
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22,734
The only place presently that accepts unusable turbine blades is a landfill near Burlington, IA.. They grind them and bury them. Wonder how long it will be until they "break-down"? Never. What was used for the manufacturing of these blades? Crude oil.
Presently, Germany is having a hard time keep the lights on. They are in the depth of winter and their 30,000 turbines aren't producing much with low wind.
Panels are buried in snow.
Germany is surviving by buying natural gas from Russia, coal from Poland and nuclear from France. A misguided Merkel orchestrated the removal of nuclear plants after [bleep] making a commitment to renewables - which aren't renewable.

Last edited by bigwhoop; 02/11/21.

My home is the "sanctuary residence" for my firearms.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................

water.

What a novel idea.


Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient.

Yes, but in a quick search, that number is as good, and sometimes better than other forms of electrical generation

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=coal+electricity+efficiency&ia=web

https://www.brighthubengineering.co...r-plants/#natural-gas-fired-power-plants

Of course, it's on the internet and there are likely some built in biases depending on which link you click on.

But in general, even at 50% efficiency perhaps the best benefit would be the end products of electrons and..................... water?


Valsdad,

You're comparing something different. You're examples regard the initial generation of the electricity.

The efficiency number I provided presumes you already have electricity, do the conversion to hydrogen, and back to electricity.......and in that round trip, you only get back 60% of your original electricity.


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,416
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................

water.

What a novel idea.


Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient.

Yes, but in a quick search, that number is as good, and sometimes better than other forms of electrical generation

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=coal+electricity+efficiency&ia=web

https://www.brighthubengineering.co...r-plants/#natural-gas-fired-power-plants

Of course, it's on the internet and there are likely some built in biases depending on which link you click on.

But in general, even at 50% efficiency perhaps the best benefit would be the end products of electrons and..................... water?


Valsdad,

You're comparing something different. You're examples regard the initial generation of the electricity.

The efficiency number I provided presumes you already have electricity, do the conversion to hydrogen, and back to electricity.......and in that round trip, you only get back 60% of your original electricity.



Got it.

But, how does converting electric to hydrogen to electricity compare, efficiency and cost-wise to battery storage? (environmental costs included, like mining and disposal of old ones)

As Dutch pointed out, a barrel of fishhooks, many of them treble hooks.


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,631
N
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
N
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,631
Burning Fossile fuels to start producing Renewable energy.

or

Burning Fossile fuels to produce even more fossile fuels.


Everything costs... but I would rather have Renewable energy in the end.


The US in the last 40 years:

Socialism for big corporations and military industrial complex

&

Rugged individualism for the individual.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by Dutch


In all fairness, that applies to all projects, including fossil fuels. The things you mention, plus things like externalization of reclamation costs, etc, makes the economics a barrel of fish hooks.



That COULD apply to all projects, if all things were equal. But when you're directly comparing (supposed) production costs from a regulated utility-owned generating asset with a merchant-owned renewables asset, the advantage in manipulating the cost numbers is clearly with the PPA side of the equation. There's just too much scrutiny of utilities for them to do the kind of cooking the books that it seems is going on with merchant renewables projects. (I can't say about utility owned projects.) This doesn't even address the question of why you might be directly comparing assets that run with a 90+% capacity factor against those in the 20-40% range. My contention is that renewables pricing today is primarily about running the coal and nuclear plants off the grid permanently, not about making the most money. Even if that's not the case, their (qouted) cost numbers are in all likelihood the least useful of any type of generation.

Last edited by RufusG; 02/11/21.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,492
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................

water.

What a novel idea.


Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient.

So, how does that compare to the efficiency of transcontinental electrical transmission lines?

Efficiency, shmefficiency. The important thing is that it makes Liberals feel good.


"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever."
-S. M. Stirling
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
382 members (1lesfox, 160user, 257 mag, 1lessdog, 12344mag, 01Foreman400, 40 invisible), 2,071 guests, and 894 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,593
Posts18,397,970
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.153s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9185 MB (Peak: 1.1035 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 11:21:16 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS