[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

The Obituary Page - Coaxial - Jun 18, 2024 - 6:08pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - Beaker - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:04pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:02pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Manbird - Jun 18, 2024 - 3:38pm
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - Red_Dragon - Jun 18, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Basketball - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:46pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:36pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Hello from Greece! - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
NYTimes Connections - islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:14pm
 
Wordle - daily game - islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:10pm
 
20+ year listeners? - Alchemist - Jun 18, 2024 - 12:49pm
 
Predictions - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 12:27pm
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jun 18, 2024 - 11:33am
 
NY Times Strands - rgio - Jun 18, 2024 - 11:04am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Israel - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:51am
 
Europe - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
 
What did you have for dinner? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 18, 2024 - 8:18am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:11am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:47am
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:56pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - buddy - Jun 17, 2024 - 5:20pm
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 6:40am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:55pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Proclivities - Jun 16, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
Name My Band - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:24am
 
The Dragons' Roost - oldviolin - Jun 16, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
favorite love songs - maryte - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:58am
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:08am
 
RightWingNutZ - thisbody - Jun 15, 2024 - 1:28am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Just Wrong - ptooey - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:22am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Animal Resistance - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:04am
 
Sonos - konz - Jun 13, 2024 - 7:47am
 
New Music - lievendegrauwe - Jun 13, 2024 - 12:43am
 
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
 
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips - R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
 
Joe Biden - rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
 
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...? - kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Breaking News - Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Calling all RP Roku users! - RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
 
Streaming Marantz/HEOS - rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Economix - Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
 
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on? - rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
 
Great guitar faces - thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
 
TEXAS - maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
 
NASA & other news from space - Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 41, 42, 43  Next
Post to this Topic
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 21, 2021 - 1:01pm

 Blackbirds wrote:

Thanks for this! Still want to do some math myself. 

But do you happen to know if they actually did something new?

The are some thoughts about storing wind energy as H2 to secure energy supply. OK. If you want an uninterrupted supply of 1 wind turbine then, assuming for ease of the calculation that a wind turbine normally only produces 33% of the time (it is a little bit higher than 33% but definitively less than 50%), then you will need 3 turbines if you discard any conversion losses. This extra production has to be stored and batteries are not a real option. 

Now factor in conversion losses. Electricity from the turbine -> some synthetic fuel (H2?) -> burn -> electricity. If each step is 90% efficient (quite good) then we have 73%. With 80% (still good) it is 52%. However H2 has its issues so let us convert it to an easy simple fuel (for storage and transport) like gasoline, diesel, or kerosine which you can store as a liquid (e.g. in a simple jerrycan). So an additional step. With 90% you will find 65% overall, and 80% gives 40%. With 90% efficiency the 2 extra turbines require 1 extra turbine, with 80% you will need 3 extra wind turbines. So to secure long term energy of 1 wind turbine you will need 4 to 6 wind turbines. If you don't want the extra turbines (or nowhere to put them), then what do you use? Gas turbines ... (you can switch them on and off when needed, somehow I am not so keen on nuclear). 

Sorry but I get horror visions of the north sea (with devastating effects because of the noise for sea life (whales, dolphins), and migrating birds) or landscapes (birds of prey look downward, there was this rare bearded vulture who wandered into the Netherlands who was chopped in half in May).

 
 
Agreed that you would need to factor in a high level of redundancy if you want to power the whole thing with wind or PV. Not entirely sure about the environmental impact of wind farms. Totally agree that they are an eyesore. And I know you need to protect offshore farms from scouring, which basically creates a reef around each one. But this might actually be beneficial to local marine biodiversity. Birds it seems, learn the hard way, but learn quite fast.

Some it appears, not quite as fast as others.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 21, 2021 - 12:58pm

 islander wrote:
 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


Agreed that burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to hydrolyze water is at least one stage of inefficiency too many given that refineries routinely use steam reforming methods to make it directly from feedstock. 

But the goal is to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, which as I understand it can only come from renewables or nuclear. Not simply as a transportation fuel but also to replace coke in steelmaking. Just looks like we are a zillion miles away from this at present.


We looked at a solar powered hydrolyzer many years ago. It was supposed to be able to power a remote communication relay. The idea was solar in the day, and excess power to make hydrogen that would power a fuel cell overnight. The scale was never there. It wasn't even close. After doing the basic math we walked on the whole concept (we did do solar to supplement battery and generator). That was one of the projects that led me to the belief that the only green future we have is the one that glows. Wind, solar, hydro and conservation are all important components, but there is no true solution to our energy needs without nuclear. Small, standardized, distributed, reactors. Without nuclear, we don't make it to the place where we quit burning dinosaurs. And until we stop doing that, we are just wandering down the path to oblivion (but our cell phones will be fully charged). 
 
Doesn't look like much has changed in the meantime.  I remember getting excited about fuel cells 30 years ago, which never made a breakthrough for much the same reasons. 
Blackbirds

Blackbirds Avatar

Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 20, 2021 - 3:13pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

ok, these guys just won an Earthshot prize for this electrolyzer, which got me curious.

Can someone check my math on this?

(schnipp)


Thanks for this! Still want to do some math myself. 

But do you happen to know if they actually did something new?

The are some thoughts about storing wind energy as H2 to secure energy supply. OK. If you want an uninterrupted supply of 1 wind turbine then, assuming for ease of the calculation that a wind turbine normally only produces 33% of the time (it is a little bit higher than 33% but definitively less than 50%), then you will need 3 turbines if you discard any conversion losses. This extra production has to be stored and batteries are not a real option. 

Now factor in conversion losses. Electricity from the turbine -> some synthetic fuel (H2?) -> burn -> electricity. If each step is 90% efficient (quite good) then we have 73%. With 80% (still good) it is 52%. However H2 has its issues so let us convert it to an easy simple fuel (for storage and transport) like gasoline, diesel, or kerosine which you can store as a liquid (e.g. in a simple jerrycan). So an additional step. With 90% you will find 65% overall, and 80% gives 40%. With 90% efficiency the 2 extra turbines require 1 extra turbine, with 80% you will need 3 extra wind turbines. So to secure long term energy of 1 wind turbine you will need 4 to 6 wind turbines. If you don't want the extra turbines (or nowhere to put them), then what do you use? Gas turbines ... (you can switch them on and off when needed, somehow I am not so keen on nuclear). 

Sorry but I get horror visions of the north sea (with devastating effects because of the noise for sea life (whales, dolphins), and migrating birds) or landscapes (birds of prey look downward, there was this rare bearded vulture who wandered into the Netherlands who was chopped in half in May).

 



islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 10:00pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


Agreed that burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to hydrolyze water is at least one stage of inefficiency too many given that refineries routinely use steam reforming methods to make it directly from feedstock. 

But the goal is to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, which as I understand it can only come from renewables or nuclear. Not simply as a transportation fuel but also to replace coke in steelmaking. Just looks like we are a zillion miles away from this at present.


We looked at a solar powered hydrolyzer many years ago. It was supposed to be able to power a remote communication relay. The idea was solar in the day, and excess power to make hydrogen that would power a fuel cell overnight. The scale was never there. It wasn't even close. After doing the basic math we walked on the whole concept (we did do solar to supplement battery and generator). That was one of the projects that led me to the belief that the only green future we have is the one that glows. Wind, solar, hydro and conservation are all important components, but there is no true solution to our energy needs without nuclear. Small, standardized, distributed, reactors. Without nuclear, we don't make it to the place where we quit burning dinosaurs. And until we stop doing that, we are just wandering down the path to oblivion (but our cell phones will be fully charged). 
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 1:07pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

It's also driven by scientific illiteracy, the same kind that makes people believe in 200 mpg carburetors and perpetual motion machines.

Making hydrogen from fossil fuels may actually be more efficient than burning said fuels to generate electricity and using that to hydrolyze water*.

*Haven't checked, don't care, don't need three decimal places on dumb idea.


Agreed that burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to hydrolyze water is at least one stage of inefficiency too many given that refineries routinely use steam reforming methods to make it directly from feedstock. 

But the goal is to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, which as I understand it can only come from renewables or nuclear. Not simply as a transportation fuel but also to replace coke in steelmaking. Just looks like we are a zillion miles away from this at present.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 12:09pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I suspect the desire to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen is driven more by public pressure than common sense, as the largest supplier of hydrogen will be the oil companies. Then again, maybe further down the road the transition will end up making sense from an ecological perspective once production of hydrogen from renewable energy ramps up and the infrastructure is already in place. Still not quite sure what to make of it.

It's also driven by scientific illiteracy, the same kind that makes people believe in 200 mpg carburetors and perpetual motion machines.

Making hydrogen from fossil fuels may actually be more efficient than burning said fuels to generate electricity and using that to hydrolyze water*.

*Haven't checked, don't care, don't need three decimal places on dumb idea.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 11:34am

 Lazy8 wrote:

On a mass basis H2 is high energy density. On a volume basis much lower than liquid fuels—hence the enormous external tank on the H2/O2 powered space shuttle.


I suspect the desire to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen is driven more by public pressure than common sense, as the largest supplier of hydrogen will be the oil companies. Then again, maybe further down the road the transition will end up making sense from an ecological perspective once production of hydrogen from renewable energy ramps up and the infrastructure is already in place. Still not quite sure what to make of it.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 9:01am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
thought it might be. Thx for the feedback. 
H2 is still getting hyped here quite a bit. Mostly for industrial applications needing high energy density fuels. 

On a mass basis H2 is high energy density. On a volume basis much lower than liquid fuels—hence the enormous external tank on the H2/O2 powered space shuttle.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 19, 2021 - 6:52am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Welcome to the laws of thermodynamics!

Yes, hydrogen is basically a very inefficient battery. Its appeal lies in its portability: if you have a source of electricity that isn't doing anything else you can turn it into stored energy that you can burn in modified current technology.

It will still have emissions issues as long as you're burning it in a conventional IC engine breathing an atmosphere that's mostly nitrogen, but they are way down from fossil fuels. They're also way down on power—BMW has been shipping hydrogen powered cars for years, and compared to the same model gasoline engine they make significantly less power.

But it's no breakthru technology. Kind of a dead end.


thought it might be. Thx for the feedback. 
H2 is still getting hyped here quite a bit. Mostly for industrial applications needing high energy density fuels. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 18, 2021 - 7:03am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

ok, these guys just won an Earthshot prize for this electrolyzer, which got me curious.

Can someone check my math on this?

According to the data sheet, it needs 2400Wh to produce 500 normal litres of hydrogen 

Apparently it takes 11,200 litres  (11.2 m^3) of hydrogen to come up with 1kg of hydrogen at normal pressure, which this machine would produce in about a day's uninterrupted operation (500 x 24 = 12000 litres). How does this tally with the data sheet which states 4.8 kWh for 1m^3 of hydrogen? It seems to be out by a factor of roughly 10.

Whatever, hydrogen has a usable energy density of 33.6 kW per kg, so this machine is producing roughly 33.6 kW of energy in one day from 57.6 kW of electricity as an input, plus the water.

One electrolyzer costs €9000.
So, assuming the above is correct, the question is what other infrastructure would you need? And what would be the total cost of generating enough fuel to run a hydrogen-powered car at say 12000 km/year ignoring the cost of the car?

According to the manufacturer,  the BMW i3 consumes 15.3 kWh for 100 km, so, assuming a hydrogen-powered car were similarly efficient (probably not), you could produce enough hydrogen to power a car for 200 km, (based on 24 hour production). 

hmm.. so what are the pitfalls?

  • Cost of power: our local price for renewable electricity is 30c per kWh which translates into €14 a day to power the electrolyzer.
  • I guess you could source the power from small wind-turbines but this is variable - only on windy days, etc. or PV
  • Storing the hydrogen
  • Dangers of hydrogen
And what is the true energy balance on inputs (manufacture of the infrastructure etc. compared to the output? 

Welcome to the laws of thermodynamics!

Yes, hydrogen is basically a very inefficient battery. Its appeal lies in its portability: if you have a source of electricity that isn't doing anything else you can turn it into stored energy that you can burn in modified current technology.

It will still have emissions issues as long as you're burning it in a conventional IC engine breathing an atmosphere that's mostly nitrogen, but they are way down from fossil fuels. They're also way down on power—BMW has been shipping hydrogen powered cars for years, and compared to the same model gasoline engine they make significantly less power.

But it's no breakthru technology. Kind of a dead end.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 18, 2021 - 4:43am

ok, these guys just won an Earthshot prize for this electrolyzer, which got me curious.

Can someone check my math on this?

According to the data sheet, it needs 2400Wh to produce 500 normal litres of hydrogen 

Apparently it takes 11,200 litres  (11.2 m^3) of hydrogen to come up with 1kg of hydrogen at normal pressure, which this machine would produce in about a day's uninterrupted operation (500 x 24 = 12000 litres). How does this tally with the data sheet which states 4.8 kWh for 1m^3 of hydrogen? It seems to be out by a factor of roughly 10.

Whatever, hydrogen has a usable energy density of 33.6 kW per kg, so this machine is producing roughly 33.6 kW of energy in one day from 57.6 kW of electricity as an input, plus the water.

One electrolyzer costs €9000.
So, assuming the above is correct, the question is what other infrastructure would you need? And what would be the total cost of generating enough fuel to run a hydrogen-powered car at say 12000 km/year ignoring the cost of the car?

According to the manufacturer,  the BMW i3 consumes 15.3 kWh for 100 km, so, assuming a hydrogen-powered car were similarly efficient (probably not), you could produce enough hydrogen to power a car for 200 km, (based on 24 hour production). 

hmm.. so what are the pitfalls?
  • Cost of power: our local price for renewable electricity is 30c per kWh which translates into €14 a day to power the electrolyzer.
  • I guess you could source the power from small wind-turbines but this is variable - only on windy days, etc. or PV
  • Storing the hydrogen
  • Dangers of hydrogen
And what is the true energy balance on inputs (manufacture of the infrastructure etc. compared to the output? 
rhahl

rhahl Avatar



Posted: Apr 17, 2021 - 7:19am

Solar-to-Hydrogen Tech Sees "Remarkable" Efficiency Jump

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/solar-to-hydrogen-remarkable-efficiency-jump
 
Here comes hydrogen as a serious fuel. One trouble is it leaks right through most pipe materials.
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 17, 2021 - 11:27am

Energy "independence"
The crisis highlighted a deeper warning for power systems throughout the country. Electric grids can be engineered to handle a wide range of severe conditions — as long as grid operators can reliably predict the dangers ahead. But as climate change accelerates, many electric grids will face novel and extreme weather events that go beyond the historical conditions those grids were designed for, putting the systems at risk of catastrophic failure.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 17, 2021 - 7:48am

500 Walmarts forced to close due to the weather?   

Now we know that storm is serious!  
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 17, 2021 - 6:59am



 Proclivities wrote:


 westslope wrote:
Texas wind turbines freeze as Texas orders rolling black outs

Huh!?!!   

Should we Canadians order care packages of white lithium grease and send them to Texas? Or do Texans need lessons in risk management? 

I would really like somebody familiar with the technology of these wind turbines to explain to me how they managed to freeze. I do not recall wind turbines in cold oceans such as the North Atlantic freezing.

 
Apparently, wind turbines used in predictably-cold locations can have heating systems installed in them for their gearboxes and other components.  The present temperatures in many parts of Texas are well below normal ranges for those areas, such an idea may never have come up for them.

Somewhat interesting article:  Wind Energy in Cold Climates
 

Thanks Proclivities.   The Natural Resource Canada ministry website is informative.  I have learned a lot about wind turbines and Texas grid management over the past couple of days.  

I gather that wind turbines can be cold weather-proofed like just about everything else.

Some US pundits appear to have a negative view of Texas management.  According to Julian Lee at bloomberg.com, Texan politicians may be blaming green energy but apparently conventional sources were impacted even harder.   

Blame Texas Exceptionalism For This Crisis, Not Green Energy
 - Julian Lee, Bloomberg
It’s time the state prepared its power supply for more cold winters.


Two reflections:

1.  Given the numbers I am hearing/reading, Texas did a bad job of risk management.    People died.  

2.  When are supposedly educated, bright Americans going to take anthropogenic climate disruption seriously?  
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 15, 2021 - 10:41pm



 Proclivities wrote:


 westslope wrote:
Texas wind turbines freeze as Texas orders rolling black outs

Huh!?!!   

Should we Canadians order care packages of white lithium grease and send them to Texas? Or do Texans need lessons in risk management? 

I would really like somebody familiar with the technology of these wind turbines to explain to me how they managed to freeze. I do not recall wind turbines in cold oceans such as the North Atlantic freezing.

 
Apparently, wind turbines used in predictably-cold locations can have heating systems installed in them for their gearboxes and other components.  The present temperatures in many parts of Texas are well below normal ranges for those areas, such an idea may never have come up for them.

Somewhat interesting article:  Wind Energy in Cold Climates
 
I read Texas has a nuke shutdown, too. You would think those things could stay warm enough.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 15, 2021 - 9:01pm



 Manbird wrote:


 westslope wrote:
-Texas wind turbines BAND NAME freeze as Texas orders -rolling black outs BAND NAME



 


Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: La Villa Toscana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 15, 2021 - 5:31pm



 westslope wrote:
-Texas wind turbines BAND NAME freeze as Texas orders -rolling black outs BAND NAME

Huh!?!!   

Should we Canadians order -care packages BAND NAME of -white lithium grease BAND NAME and -send them to Texas BAND NAME Or do -Texans need lessons BAND NAME in risk management? 

I would really like somebody familiar with the technology of these wind turbines to explain to me how they managed to freeze. -I do not recall BAND NAME wind turbines -in cold oceans BAND NAME such as the -North Atlantic freezing BAND NAME.

 


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 15, 2021 - 1:25pm



 Proclivities wrote:


 westslope wrote:
Texas wind turbines freeze as Texas orders rolling black outs

Huh!?!!   

Should we Canadians order care packages of white lithium grease and send them to Texas? Or do Texans need lessons in risk management? 

I would really like somebody familiar with the technology of these wind turbines to explain to me how they managed to freeze. I do not recall wind turbines in cold oceans such as the North Atlantic freezing.

 
Apparently, wind turbines used in predictably-cold locations can have heating systems installed in them for their gearboxes and other components.  The present temperatures in many parts of Texas are well below normal ranges for those areas, such an idea may never have come up for them.

Somewhat interesting article:  Wind Energy in Cold Climates
 

I imagine the ramifications of even a little more ice on one blade than another could be catastrophic.
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 15, 2021 - 1:09pm



 westslope wrote:
Texas wind turbines freeze as Texas orders rolling black outs

Huh!?!!   

Should we Canadians order care packages of white lithium grease and send them to Texas? Or do Texans need lessons in risk management? 

I would really like somebody familiar with the technology of these wind turbines to explain to me how they managed to freeze. I do not recall wind turbines in cold oceans such as the North Atlantic freezing.

 
Apparently, wind turbines used in predictably-cold locations can have heating systems installed in them for their gearboxes and other components.  The present temperatures in many parts of Texas are well below normal ranges for those areas, such an idea may never have come up for them.

Somewhat interesting article:  Wind Energy in Cold Climates
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 41, 42, 43  Next