<DrumBeat: June 3, 2007The Oil DrumCyclone Gonu Thread 1>

107 comments on Wind power: some lessons from 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

beggar on June 3, 2007 - 11:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

tstreet, I think that your comment are on target.

Oddly, we have plenty of potential for windpower here in Minnesota, but the utility company is painfully slow in developing this resource.

I would think they'd want to get out in front and be on the cutting edge.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paal myrtvedt on June 3, 2007 - 2:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

hi beggar -
Can this sort of chart add some input to the reasons why Minnesota is not jumping high for WTs?

note) the vertical axis zero level, is actually a windspeed of 5 m/s ...

Im not against windturbines - BUT they have their issues (!)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gilgamesh on June 3, 2007 - 2:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

before you do anything this is only west denmark data.

take east, south, and north data, sum them all together to see what the TRUE capacity factor is.

You see, Denmark is pretty big, wind may be blowing somewhere and not elsewhere.

You could even make a model, determining the distance to the load and calculated the transmission losses for each windfarm, then we would be getting very accurate results.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paal myrtvedt on June 3, 2007 - 2:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Gilgamesh - you claim : " Denmark is pretty big, wind may be blowing somewhere and not elsewhere", is wrong !

Well for one,Denmark is a PRETTY small place - expect the same weather "all over the place" if you ever go there.

West Denmark, Jutland, is actually the big-chunk making up most of Denmark.

whatever - and as I say WTs have their issues , dont you agree ?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Richard on June 3, 2007 - 8:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Denmark is pretty big, wind may be blowing somewhere and not elsewhere.

Sorry to say: No. Denmark is pretty small. About the size of a coffee-cup. Only if you take greenland into consideration, it becomes much bigger.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on June 3, 2007 - 3:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The current design WTs have an undersized generator (weight on top of a tall tower) that "maxes out" well before cutout speed. So much of their production is at constant output, hour to hour.

Also Denmark is NOT very large and hence, not very geographically diverse. Larger areas will show less variation.

MN is approaching the 1 GW of installed wind power from memory. Equal to 1 nuke on a windy day.

Best Hopes for more wind power,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Terb on June 3, 2007 - 9:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I was watching a documentary oabout factory that makes Wind Turbines in Germany and was wondering why the Turbine had to be at the top of the tower? Particularly the land based ones. Now I am no engineer but it looked like the turbine is geared anyway so why not have a shaft leading to the bottom of the tower? I accept that there may be some loss of energy but they would be so much easier (cheaper) to maintain!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paal myrtvedt on June 3, 2007 - 10:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Terb bulls eye
- and exactly what I have been trying to figure for years now...!

The problem with the WTs are the enormous torques they must endure, particularly the start momentum ... the forces involved chew gears like kids chew gum.

So adding a 90dg angular/beveled gear would probably add to these issues - and a loss of maybe 20% ...

The larger 5MW WTs are really heavy up there, the Nacelle with components plus the 3-blades weigh 310 tons - OR the same as 310 nos of 1ton automobiles - IT all put on top of the tower ...wow.

These 5MW WTs need to be started up by a separate motor, in order to start their mission. An average tower is at some 5 million Pound Sterling - only the tower.

... and it all done on purpose at free will – peak-energy is around and we scramble for solutions – the power table submitted tells me all (!)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Terb on June 3, 2007 - 10:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

see the below image for the innards of a typical turbine.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
paal myrtvedt on June 4, 2007 - 7:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is the fellah I described above - M5000 Multibrid - How do they do this ...? I mean it is impressive stuff, but is it smart anymore - for such intermittant power. I read somewhere ( iI think Edmonton/Calgary ?- Canada) the local grid had too many WTs in their mix, rendering disruptions at low winds ... too many eggs in the same basket ... the WT basket(!)
The airbus A380 is maximum large as per overall size, had they made it larger, AND they had to alter the airports as well.... there is a limit for "stuff" -

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.