LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I just gave the original data of a large mind mill producer something you could find too if you were interested in facts.

Laughable. Presumably this 'original data' was contained in another invisible weblink? Many thanks for the enlightenment.

In return I gave you a report based on the failure rates of thousands of wind turbines from across the globe, you could read it if you were interested in facts. Might learn something.

Although, I don't have much hope. As another ageist saying goes... Its hard to teach an old dog some new tricks.

Quote from Zeus46

In return I gave you a report based on the failure rates of thousands of wind turbines from across the globe, you could read it if you were interested in facts. Might learn something.

EPRI and other power industry organizations are aware of these statistics. Yet they disagree with you. You should read their documents. You might learn something.

Jed, the report I linked to is based on that same EPRI dataset. Along with 13 others.

"The onshore databases are highly variable in terms of their sizes and content. Large databases, such as Windstats, WMEP, and CIRCE, contain data from several thousands of turbines over lengthy periods of time (more than 5 years), and the number of turbine years is more than 10 000. These large databases account for over 70% of the total number of reporting onshore WTs and over 80% of the total reported turbine years. On the other hand, small databases such as EPRI, VTT, East China, Huadian, and Southeast China survey only a small number of turbines or only for short periods of time and, thus, the number of turbine years is less than 1000."

And to paraphrase what a wise(ish) man once said they aren't disagreeing with me... They are disagreeing with the data.

Quote from Zeus46

Laughable. Presumably this 'original data' was contained in another invisible weblink? Many thanks for the enlightenment.

May be younonce go to Vestas hoem page and check their info before you mae silly comments.

Quote from Zeus46

And to paraphrase what a wise(ish) man once said they aren't disagreeing with me... They are disagreeing with the data.

I guess you have no engineering education and your posts are based on intuition only. On the other side I have a master degree in reliability engineering.

May be you can tell (enlighten!) us what you do understand about "end of live"/livetime, MTTR,MTBF and what is wrong with this in your opinion? (Regarding wind power of course.)

I also hope that you understand that e.g. a car crash often is end of live of the car and has nothing to do with the expected end of live of the car.

But you can do such inclusions too as the insurers must do. But insurance math is an other area you should have some more deep knowledge if you want to discuss about stochastic failure rates that depend on the specific use of the equipment. Thus live time usually is given for standard use within the range of definition.

Now you can go back to your big report and try to find out what is wrong!

^ Another post devoid of evidence, links, or technical argument.

Vestas’ home page has a nice picture of some turbines. So what? I’m not really prepared to search much deeper, as history suggests trying to find published evidence for the majority of your assertions is a complete waste of my time. Honesty, I’m surprised they don’t fall into the ‘Wind Mafia’ category. Perhaps their sales and marketing department will provide me with their reliability data if I ask nicely? No doubt it will be peer-reviewed and free from all biases.

You’re the one that has a disagreement with the report I posted, so I would expect a much more convincing reply from a master of reliability engineering: The above is unworthy of your apparent education and smacks heavily of evasion.

And, as you asked, I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, although personally I refrain from waving my credentials around as a method of bluster. (Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to use it as a point in any argument I made: it’s a lazy, and rather obvious, appeal to authority).

So over to you. I think we could all learn something about wind turbine reliability issues from someone with such a focused education. In fact, it seems to me that this is the ideal opportunity to prove that you’re not completely full of crap, for once.

Something about a ‘car crash’, ‘insurance inclusions’ and ‘specific use’ cases? Enlighten us some more, O’ Master.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Who did manufactor teh windmill?

At the bottom is the data I have, however I doubt that GE actually builds many of the parts such as the rotors or even the blades.

My points are not anecdotal evidence. They are facts as I have personally been involved. It is amazing how some here will blindly accept "internet facts" posted by organizations that are aligned with one's world view. For almost every factoid person X gives, person Y can find a rebutall.

Having dealt with the repair companies for a length of time, they are telling me the real story and I can verify much of their story by the transactions I see taking place here. Now some might say this wind farm is an anomaly and does not represent the whole..... perhaps but very doubtful as these repair companies travel the entire country and state is is pretty much the same.

Again, I am not saying the wind farms should be torn down or abandoned. I am saying there is a very large amount of disinformation about them out there.

It is interesting how main stream is so absolutely "wrong and untrustworthy" about LENR / Cold Fustion but can be completely accepted and believed about Covid19, "green" renewable energy or other areas! What is more reality, is that one can find sources to support particular world views! (Including me)

General data

• Manufacturer: GE Energy (USA)
• Model: 1.6-100
• Rated power: 1,600 kW
• Rotor diameter: 100 m
• No more available
• Wind class: IEC S
• Offshore model: no
• Swept area: 7,854 m²
• Power density: 4.91 m²/kW
• Number of blades: 3
• Power control: Pitch

Weights

• Nacelle: 65 tons

Rotor

• Minimum rotor speed: 9,75 rd/min
• Maximum rotor speed: 16,7 rd/min
• Cut-in wind speed: 3,5 m/s
• Rated wind speed: 11 m/s
• Cut-off wind speed: 25 m/s

Gear box

• Gear box: yes
• Stages: 3
• Gear ratio: 115

Generator

• Type: ASYNC DF
• Number: 1
• Voltage: 690 V

Tower

• Minimum hub height: 80 m
• Maximum hub height: 100 m

Quote from Zeus46

Something about a ‘car crash’, ‘insurance inclusions’ and ‘specific use’ cases? Enlighten us some more, O’ Master.

You should switch to a childrens forum if you cannot answer the very simple basic questions I gave to you!

Nobody here understands your problem? The only thing we know since about a month is that you don't like wind energy. May be you can at least tell us why?

Quote from Bob#2

Gear box

Gear box: yes
Stages: 3

This is an old model that tries to avoid expensive electronics. Gearboxes are a constant source of troubles due to strong vibrations!

Oh dear. I think I hear your old university calling. They want their degree certificate back.

Wind energy? Love it. I genuinely think they improve the landscape. Big machines. A momument to our ingenuity. They provide my wife with a salary, and keep her out of the house during the day.

No doubt you are confusing me with ZephirAWT. Does’t the avatar give it away? More colours, yah?

Quote from Zeus46

No doubt you are confusing me with ZephirAWT. Does’t the avatar give it away? More colours, yah?

I couldn't find any difference in posting style between the two avatars. May be you can explain it?

What exactly did you want to tell us about wind energy ??

This coming from the same person who thinks multiple people are being the 'Huxley Persona'?

Crackers. To put it politely.

if anyone doubt windpower is profitable, they should start listen to the Market.

Now a gigantic 1500 MW offshore windpower plant will be build completely free of subsidies.

https://gcaptain.com/subsidy-f…n-light-in-the-north-sea/

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report In general nuclear plants have quite low EROEIs, in part since energy is needed to extract and process the uranium fuel. EROEI for current PWRs are around 16;1. And this will fall as and when lower grade ores have to be used, for an ore grade of 0.01%, to 5.6 for underground mining and to 3.2% for open pit mining, and to as low as 2 for in situ leaching techniques. The return time of investments for nuclear plants is thus comparable to their life-time - so that they must get subsidized (by fossil fuel based economics indeed) in similar way (just in smaller extent). The world has not enough of economically feasible uranium for everyone (see also here or here). The thorium energetic has additional drawbacks too and it also poses the nuclear proliferation risk.

But despite all of it nuclear energy is still cheap in comparison with renewables: Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of France’s Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long

if anyone doubt windpower is profitable, they should start listen to the Market.

Now a gigantic 1500 MW offshore windpower plant will be build completely free of subsidies.

https://gcaptain.com/subsidy-f…n-light-in-the-north-sea/

Quote from Zephir_AWT

But despite all of it nuclear energy is still cheap in comparison with renewables: Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of France’s Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long

Switzerland had long time (>10 years) contracts for French nuclear current. They stopped it already some years ago due to base costs over the average market price... Further: Fessenheim is as bad as Fukushima. Low cost building / safety. It is just good luck nothing happened the last 50 years as the building sits over a fault zone, what even in Japan is now forbidden to go online again!

So your data must be damn old...Current new nuclear current is 2x market price at least! The old one is/will be payed (decommissioning) once by all of us.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Fessenheim is as bad as Fukushima

But wait.

and wait and wait old clean Fessenheim power will be replaced by new clean Flamanville power 1500MW.( supposed to startup in 2012

"Its cost, initially estimated at 3.4 billion euros, was successively reassessed by EDF to 4 billion in December 2008,

then to 5 billion euros in July 2010 76 , then to 6 billion euros in July 2011, at 8.5 billion euros in December 2012 77 , 78 ,

to 10.5 billion euros in September 2015 79 , to 10.9 billion euros in July 2018 80 , to 11 billion euros in October 2018 81

and finally to 12.4 billion euros in October 2019 "

But the cost is still not final.. add iin 1 or 2 billions

Old news:

"FYI 3 June 2016"

Quote from Zephir_AWT

But despite all of it nuclear energy is still cheap in comparison with renewables: Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of France’s Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long

As long as the nuclear industry is heavily subsidiced and is not forced to give a correct price tag (including the risk of an accident and save radioactive waste disposal) of their service, you compare apples with oranges.

Quote from gerold.s

As long as the nuclear industry is heavily subsidiced and is not forced to give a correct price tag (including the risk of an accident and save radioactive waste disposal) of their service

In the U.S. they do include the cost of decommissioning reactors and safely disposing of the parts. The power companies pay a small surcharge to a fund to cover that. A number of reactors have been decommissioned. So far, the amount paid in over the life of the reactor has been enough to decommission it. I do not think it was enough to cover for the three reactors destroyed in accidents, especially Three Mile Island.

Storing radwaste is another matter. There was a plan in the U.S. in Yucca Mountain but it has been derailed by opposition.