• Howdy! we're looking for donations to finish custom knowledgebase software for this forum. Please see our Funding drive thread

Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Voltron said:
One plus of solar installations is when they're blown up in a regional conflict, afterward they don't spew massive amounts of methane like the Nord pipelines, or radiation like Zaporizhzhya nuke plant in Ukraine.

A year ago I would have laughed at that statement.

Today I'm sad that I no longer find it funny.
 
Voltron said:
One plus of solar installations is when they're blown up in a regional conflict, afterward they don't spew massive amounts of methane like the Nord pipelines, or radiation like Zaporizhzhya nuke plant in Ukraine.
To be fair, comparatively little radiation has been released from both plants, and nobody expected Russia to be THAT GODDAMNED INSANE to actively artillery shell a functioning nuclear plant.
Remember, they only stopped doing it because it would active Article 5 of the NATO charter and we'd invade.
 
classicalgas wrote: ↑
Sep 05 2022 10:16pm

Those comparative numbers are all inclusive...land cost, financing, construction, decommissioning, etc……

BUT…those numbers do not include the …storage, back up generation, FCAS, remote connection services, etc etc… …
….that are needed to make Wind and Solar generation a CONTINUOUS AND RELIABLE energy supply.

At half the cost, or less, than nukes, solar leaves a lot of room to pay for storage. If it's decentralized and local use, no major costs for additional infrastructure.

Sorry, nukes lose out to solar, no matter how you want to pretend otherwise.

Not even mentioning the attractiveness of nuke plants to terrorists.
 
Can you contemplate the storage capacity needed, its cost, etc ..to ensure supply for somewhere like N York, or London, for those long, windless, multi day /night periods during winter ?
And unfortunately the world experience to date has shown that Solar and wind has to be located where those resources are best found…. Hence, infrastructure,(transmission, distribution, etc) costs often outweigh the generation facility costs.
…an example..
N York demand is 500 GWh each day, ie, about 20 GW continous all day & night .
..which implies a installed capacity of 100GW of Solar, and at least 250GWh of storage for night coverage !
Then you have to guess how many days of minimal (nil ?) solar needs to be stored to cover to prevent total blackout of the entire city.!
.. so what is your best guess ?..2 days ?..5 days ?..more ?…..remember , there is no other back up !
Even just 2 days would suggest 1000 GWh of storage !
Last time i looked, utility scale tesla storage cost $500,000 per MWh ( ? $500 m per GWh ?)
How much was that nuke going to cost ?
 
Germany is literally tearing down a wind farm to access the juicy coal underneath to feed its coal power-stations.
https://balkangreenenergynews.com/wind-farm-in-germany-is-being-dismantled-to-expand-coal-mine/
https://twitter.com/JohannesFehr/status/1583122050495152128
STA02-tagebau-garzweiler-1-430-840.jpg


It's also on the far left news sites as well in case you dont believe it... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/26/german-windfarm-coalmine-keyenberg-turbines-climate

Most of the time I check Germany on Electricitymap I see coal is their largest source of electricity, due to reduced gas access.
That's quit remarkable since they have about 160,000MW of installed renewables capacity, but ultimately that isn't enough renewables capacity when on average they need about 55,000MW of power...
So maybe if they install 400% renewables capacity they might get to the point where fossil fuels doesn't rule them completely.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
 
TheBeastie said:
So maybe if they install 400% renewables capacity they might get to the point where fossil fuels doesn't rule them completely.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
Even if they could install that much RE ( ? They cannot?).. what will they do on those windless nights like those they suffered this year ?
..batteries ?… how many GWh ?
..imports from France etc ?…expensive , and likely not enough when everyone is in the same windless boat !
..Nuclear ?..maybe, but then you may as well have all Nuclear and forget the RE
..keep those FFuel generators maintained and on standby ?… sensible !
 
Hillhater said:
Even if they could install that much RE ( ? They cannot?).. what will they do on those windless nights like those they suffered this year ?
..batteries ?… how many GWh ?
Yeah, and from this pro-renewables YouTuber it is turning out that mass scale "compressed air/water" technology can store more MWh and do it more cheaper than grid lithium-ion batteries. :lol: I am actually glad to see this as it frees up the precious metals used for more/cheaper electric cars as it's all based around supply availability demand, grid lithium-ion storage is a waste of lithium-ion batterys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KslThwIurHs
[youtube]KslThwIurHs[/youtube]
 
GW is a strange way to quantify storage capacity….where is the duration ability ?.. GWh
But even so “43 GW” by 2030 is hardly going to save much of china in a crisis, infact it would only just see CA through an evening peak period !…( assuming it can maintain that output for 4 hours ?)
Fyi..
China already has 30 “GW” of Pumped Hydro storage, and will have 120 GW by 2030
I suspect that says something about the costs and ease of construction compared to CAES ?
I get the impression that most energy storage systems seem to be based on a 4 hour operating capacity ?
 
Here is another good video on advanced nuclear, this helium gas cooled reactor has proven it self as a demo pilot plant, and Japan now plan to scale it up and use the 1000c heat generated from the nuclear plant to "turbo boost" the an advanced thermal-chemical process called "sulfur–iodine cycle" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur%E2%80%93iodine_cycle ) to create hydrogen by splitting water called "red hydrogen", as explained in detail at this point 13mins in https://youtu.be/_uTZWaJU6ho?t=785

[youtube]_uTZWaJU6ho[/youtube]


More on the sulfur-iodine cycle.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/sulfur-iodine-cycle

So this all fits in nicely with what I posted here with the flying fuel-cell electric vehicles and super fuel-cell drift cars...
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=89002&start=7125#p1732730
 
Electrek reports companies in Europe are going back to wood construction for wind turbines due to so many blades being un-recyclable.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/16/wind-turbines-made-entirely-of-wood-are-coming/#more-266682
 
CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING said:
Electrek reports companies in Europe are going back to wood construction for wind turbines due to so many blades being un-recyclable.

https://electrek.co/2022/11/16/wind-turbines-made-entirely-of-wood-are-coming/#more-266682

Woods in high demand, more expensive for hard woods thats strong enough quality of timber to possible make a blade, its weight will be heavier making the blade need more wind to start up, plus they like to warp and burn so the day this happens to keep the lights on we might aswell face our technical evolution has crawled to a halt.

The blades present a problem wind turbines in general present more problems than fixes in my eyes nuclear could be made safe if we stop banging the war drum, in reality goverments have planned for the future as much as most teens do they first child.
 
Ianhill said:
Woods in high demand, more expensive for hard woods thats strong enough quality of timber to possible make a blade, its weight will be heavier making the blade need more wind to start up, plus they like to warp and burn so the day this happens to keep the lights on we might aswell face our technical evolution has crawled to a halt.

The blades present a problem wind turbines in general present more problems than fixes in my eyes nuclear could be made safe if we stop banging the war drum, in reality goverments have planned for the future as much as most teens do they first child.

Except per this site: https://www.naturallywood.com/products/laminated-veneer-lumber/

LVL is part of a family of products, structural composite lumber (SCL), that are made of dried and graded wood veneers, strands or flakes that are layered upon one another and bonded together with a moisture resistant adhesive into large blocks known as billets. Other products in this group include laminated strand lumber (LSL) and parallel strand lumber (PSL). In the case of LVL, veneers are bonded together under heat and pressure. [...] LVL is made from rotary-peeled veneers that are bonded together under heat and pressure into large panels that are cut into range of widths. Phenol-formaldehyde resins provide waterproof bonds. A diverse range of species can be used to produce LVL—such as Douglas-fir, larch, pine and spruce—to produce members that are beyond conventional lumber lengths. Typically, LVL veneers are oriented in the same direction.

So yeah, we NEED nuclear but they sure as heck aren't made of hardwood with something like spruce.
 
Sitka spruce and Douglas fir both have exceptional strength to density ratio, and are available in very long straight pieces.

If we still have wooden airplane propellers, we can have wooden turbine blades if we want them. Long term weather resistance is surely more of a challenge than structural properties.

I wonder why there isn't as much discussion about reconditioning/resurfacing composite wind turbine blades as there is complaining about how they aren't recyclable.
 
Chalo said:
I wonder why there isn't as much discussion about reconditioning/resurfacing composite wind turbine blades as there is complaining about how they aren't recyclable.

I didn't see the response otherwise I would have replied sooner.
Off the back of my hand... I'd say possibly a bonding issue with the surface, second to the time required to make sure all the blades are within spec so they aren't imbalanced. The non-recyclables are already built from things like carbon fiber and impregnated fiberglass; adding a new layer would likely require the surface to be sanded down, cleaned, inspected, and then after the new coat weight-balanced, which would be a process that would have to see blades shipped back to some kind of plant.
 
Blade repair is a routine maintenance process…..
And conducted “in situ”
https://www.fullcirclewindservices.com/wind-turbine-blade-repair-when-why-and-how/
As most of us go about our daily routines at home or at work, the Full Circle Blades & Repair team are busy at ‘the office’, dangling from a rope 50 metres up, carrying a full kit of tools and materials, making sure the lights stay on for us on the ground. …..
…..Damaged material on the blade surface is removed, and the material beneath it is checked. Once the subsurface is repaired, the necessary replacement layers of fibreglass are cut to size, making sure the staggers and overlaps are all correct. The fibreglass is then laminated onto the blade surface with a resin mix, and is cured using a heated blanket. Finally, it’s inspected for voids and prepared for coating, any filler is sanded down and paint is applied.

BUT…even after multiple such maintenance repairs, ultimately turbines become uneconomic and are decommissioned.
That is when blades enter the wastestream and have to be dealt with !
Every fibreglass blade ever produced will eventually enter the waste stream….
..approx a 15-25year life span !
To date, there is no pracical or economical process for recycling decommissioned fibreglass blades.
 
CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING said:
Chalo said:
I wonder why there isn't as much discussion about reconditioning/resurfacing composite wind turbine blades as there is complaining about how they aren't recyclable.
Off the back of my hand... I'd say possibly a bonding issue with the surface, second to the time required to make sure all the blades are within spec so they aren't imbalanced. The non-recyclables are already built from things like carbon fiber and impregnated fiberglass; adding a new layer would likely require the surface to be sanded down, cleaned, inspected, and then after the new coat weight-balanced, which would be a process that would have to see blades shipped back to some kind of plant.

Sure. But all those factors apply to airplanes too, yet they tend to get maintained indefinitely rather than thrown away after the paint gets shabby. It's hard for me to accept that it's always more expensive to restore than to replace turbine blades.
 
Lots of folks like to talk about how the new tech has all this waste stream disposal BS. It's a old talking point that is totally out of step with what is really going on in recycling and reuse of good materials for post apps. Look at all the new building materials now on the market for post consumer plastics. Chopped up Glass fiber composites has been proven for use in masonry apps for some time now as well as in a bunch of other apps. Just need a correctly sized grinder to get those turbine blades sized for a secondary grind down to more manageable size particles.

8-880x880.jpg

MVC-007F.JPG


Shredders.jpg
 
Fact check !
The USA has ONE facility capable of recycling wind turbine blades…

… Global Fiberglass Solutions is a U.S. start-up that is working to scale up its proprietary wind turbine blade recycling technology, CEO Don Lilly told USA TODAY. The company's website advertises diverse recycled products such as building materials and railroad ties. …
…The catch here is that while wind turbine blade recycling is technically possible, landfill disposal remains the most cost-efficient and accessible option in many cases.

“Physical and material scientists can recycle blades now," Eric Lantz, wind analysis manager at National Renewable Energy Laboratory told USA TODAY in an email. "But, broadly speaking, scaling up recycling technologies will require more research and development to maximize the value of the recycled materials and improve the economics of the processes.”
And also..
A method for recycling wind turbine blades has been developed that uses pyrolysis to break the composite materials into their constituent parts - phenol and fibre. According to the researchers from Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), Lithuania, the extracted materials can then be reused and the process is virtually waste-free.
Pyrolysis..= fire/heat. !
So that wont have any side effects , cost, or environmental impacts then ..?
It all comes down to costs !
 
speedmd said:
Burning a few hundred tons of composites vs a few million tons of coal a year. Lets see the math my friend. BS is the easy part.

To be fair that coal powers most of china while wind does not.
Im not for coal or releasing millions of years worth of hydrocarbons in what ever way but coal is the dirtiest of the bunch no doubt but sold as clean while minings filthy, i see the more time goes on less people agree with reality, and thats our modern lifestyles are unsustainable big business builds poor products with low serviceability on purpose, the energy cost to such a system is many times what all the earthlings could actually get by with and still and a purposeful life.
 
speedmd said:
Burning a few hundred tons of composites vs a few million tons of coal a year. Lets see the math my friend. BS is the easy part.
Last year, there were 2.9 million tons of turbine blades in the waste stream….
…that would be from those few turbines installed pre 2000
That figure will increase yearon year at the same rate as wind turbines were being installed in 2000+
And what exactly do you think fuels the “pyrolisis” ….sunbeams ?
Now, about the math,… how many turbines required to produce the equivalent of one coal generator .?
Ahh, also your chart of china electricty generation was a little deceptive..
 

Attachments

  • 908A4F96-0850-4A75-A78A-126F5A31080C.jpeg
    908A4F96-0850-4A75-A78A-126F5A31080C.jpeg
    381.4 KB · Views: 19
Back
Top