So you think wind power is the answer ...

[jimpeel]

You know. Every time I see this type of 'doom and gloom' post, I wonder why we even bother as a species. Wind power, for all its foibles, is still a viable source of power, regardless of what you posted. Maybe its not 100%, but, looking at Florida the past couple of days, nothing is. Supplement all you can, and stop decrying the 75% to 90% solution.

They can have their own brand of problems

February 22, 2008 in Denmark:

The closeup real time view

The distant view

And the slo-mo version

 

[Gato_Solo]

They can have their own brand of problems

February 22, 2008 in Denmark:

The closeup real time view

The distant view

And the slo-mo version

1. Youtube is not accessible on DoD computers.
2. Doesn't really matter what it shows, my point is still valid.
3. If we, as a species, do not realize that we should save something, then, perhaps, we shouldn't have it at all. Thats what you're advocating, innit? If its not a 100% replacement, then its not worth the effort?

 

[2minkey]

Sure, I'll be hooked into the grid, but, on the flip side, the grid will also be hooked into me.

hopefully you won't post pics of that.

 

[jimpeel]

Source for the first bit?

Did you miss the part in every article which speaks of the silica buildup on the surfaces of the pipes? That is but one source of matter which can damage turbines.

Direct water injection of wells, for "flashed steam" plants, is where most problems occur with matter being blown back up the pipe causing damage to the turbines.

http://geothermal.id.doe.gov/publications/ineel-research-2002/partin_grc.pdf

Techniques for evaluating the concentration of solids and dissolved solids found in geothermal fluids are of interest since the presence of these materials even at very low levels can cause significant damage to plant components. The principal impurities of concern are silica, iron, aluminum, and chlorides since these elements are associated with scaling and corrosion (Jung, 1995; Gallup, 1998).

http://www.iaus.com/BladelessTurbine.aspx

Where geothermal plants do exist, they use turbines that are large, extremely expensive, require ultra-high tolerances, and are difficult to maintain. In most cases, high-temperature water from under the earth's surface must be flashed and steam-separated so that only the purest steam can pass through the expensive blades of the traditional turbines. But, even after the steam-separation process, condensation, high impact from particulates (the equivalent to coarse sandpaper) and scaling caused by mineral deposits can cause serious damage to the blades in today's turbines.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4905473.html

Even with the demisters, prior to the present invention a sufficient amount of brine droplets and particulates flowed with the separated steam to the turbine or turbines to cause damage to the turbines, particularly to high pressure turbinestages. Such damage included deterioration of the turbine blades, and also some shroud cracking and breaking on the turbine rotor assemblies. This, of course, involved substantial additional capital replacement costs and revenue loss from down-time.

...

Another general object of the invention is to protect geothermal power plant steam turbine components from being fouled and damaged by brine droplets and solid particulates entrained in the steam that is separated from hot geothermal brine in theflash crystallizers.

http://www.rasertech.com/geothermal_technology.html

Flash.
Flash steam power plants use hot water reservoirs. In flash plants, as hot water is released from the pressure of the deep reservoir in a flash tank, some of it flashes to steam. Some problems that arise from Flash plants include complications from natural materials present in the ground water that damage turbines and pipes, and the potential for contamination of the ground water through contact with turbines and other equipment before being reintroduced back into the ground.

Read HERE for more information on geothermal vs oil.

And, as I have stated prior, the enviros will find fault with ANY type of energy program.

 

[jimpeel]

1. Youtube is not accessible on DoD computers.
2. Doesn't really matter what it shows, my point is still valid.
3. If we, as a species, do not realize that we should save something, then, perhaps, we shouldn't have it at all. Thats what you're advocating, innit? If its not a 100% replacement, then its not worth the effort?

All I'm saying is the wind doesn't always blow.

 

[jimpeel]

A site that discusses various alternative energy types.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26366/text/alternative/index.html

 

[Gato_Solo]

All I'm saying is the wind doesn't always blow.

I believe I answered that, but I'll re-iterate as simply as I can...So what? Fossile fuel is a huge pollution source, and nuclear plants aren't 100%.

You then attempt to tout other means, but its in a way that does not actually make the use of said other means viable for any save a large corporation. We know the wind doesn't always blow. What of it? When it is blowing you're generating. If you want solar cells, go for it. Everybody knows the sun doesn't shine at night, and that the capacity is severely reduced on cloudy days...but its not always cloudy, nor is it always night. You have a very negative viewpoint, my friend, and it shows.

 

[Gato_Solo]

hopefully you won't post pics of that.

I'd be bored, and you'd be confused.

 

[jimpeel]

I believe I answered that, but I'll re-iterate as simply as I can...So what? Fossile fuel is a huge pollution source, and nuclear plants aren't 100%.

You then attempt to tout other means, but its in a way that does not actually make the use of said other means viable for any save a large corporation. We know the wind doesn't always blow. What of it? When it is blowing you're generating. If you want solar cells, go for it. Everybody knows the sun doesn't shine at night, and that the capacity is severely reduced on cloudy days...but its not always cloudy, nor is it always night. You have a very negative viewpoint, my friend, and it shows.

You are NOT generating until the wind is blowing sufficiently. That sufficiency is usually around 10-12 mph and the things are governed -- except for maybe the one in the video -- at around 25-30 mph. So if the wind is blowing at 45 mph you will not generate any more power than if it is blowing 25 mph.

Just in case you are wondering why I know so much about wind power, I used to live HERE.

 

[jimpeel]

Here is a bit of detail on wind generation in NE

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/89.htm

Energy generated by wind power is estimated to be less than one percent of Nebraska's energy consumption in 2004 and less than one percent of the electricity generated in 2004. (The year 2004 is the most recent year that data is provided for consumption.)

 

[Gato_Solo]

You are NOT generating until the wind is blowing sufficiently. That sufficiency is usually around 10-12 mph and the things are governed -- except for maybe the one in the video -- at around 25-30 mph. So if the wind is blowing at 45 mph you will not generate any more power than if it is blowing 25 mph.

Just in case you are wondering why I know so much about wind power, I used to live HERE.

Once again...so what?

 

[chcr]

Not forgotten. Taught.

Point in your favor.


Jim, I still think your missing the point on this new heat exchanger technology which limits or eliminates scaling. I think it's pretty evident that one of the reasons they're testing it in Reykjavik and other places is to solve the silica build up problem in all geothermal systems.

Edit: Of course, my opinion is that flash steam geothermal is a dead end anyway. Too cumbersome, too many problems and completely unnecessary.

 

[paul_valaru]

what is wrong with the idea of geo-thermal, if you can sink a sealed pip into the ground, pump down filtered water, get steam back up, spins a turbine, steam is reclaimed and sent back down again. If done on a large scale it can be a valid source of clean energy.

Nuclear is fairly clean, if you ignore the waste, or in the future the waste can be disposed of safely, but the problem with it is when something goes wrong it REALLY goes wrong.

and Chernobyl was human error, the reactor design is not the best, but a valid design.

 

[jimpeel]

Point in your favor.


Jim, I still think your missing the point on this new heat exchanger technology which limits or eliminates scaling. I think it's pretty evident that one of the reasons they're testing it in Reykjavik and other places is to solve the silica build up problem in all geothermal systems.

Edit: Of course, my opinion is that flash steam geothermal is a dead end anyway. Too cumbersome, too many problems and completely unnecessary.

Heat exchangers are but one of the technologies. Dry steam, flash steam, binary cycle, and combined cycle, etc. As for turbines, did you catch THIS LINK I posted HERE on bladeless turbines?

 

[jimpeel]

what is wrong with the idea of geo-thermal, if you can sink a sealed pip into the ground, pump down filtered water, get steam back up, spins a turbine, steam is reclaimed and sent back down again. If done on a large scale it can be a valid source of clean energy.

Nuclear is fairly clean, if you ignore the waste, or in the future the waste can be disposed of safely, but the problem with it is when something goes wrong it REALLY goes wrong.

and Chernobyl was human error, the reactor design is not the best, but a valid design.

Actually, the design is the flaw.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip64a.htm

The combination of graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors. The design characteristics of the reactor mean that it is unstable at low power levels, and this was shown in the Chernobyl accident. The instability was due primarily to control rod design and a positive void coefficient. A number of significant design changes have now been made to address these problems.

 

[paul_valaru]

Actually it looks like there are 2 schools of thought about that.

Flawed operators theory

The operators violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed by the RBMK design. This is partly due to their lack of knowledge of the reactor's design as well as lack of experience and training. Several procedural irregularities also contributed to causing the accident. One was insufficient communication between the safety officers and the operators in charge of the experiment being run that night. It is also important to note that, the reactors operators disabled every single safety system down to the generators, in which the test was really about. The main process computer, "S.K.A.L.A", was running in such a way that, the main control computer could not shut down the reactor or even reduce power. Normally the reactor would have started to insert all control rods, manual or automatic. The computer would have also started the "Emergency Core Protection System", that introduces 24 control rods into the active zone within 2.5 seconds, which is still slow by 1986 standards. All control was given from the process computer, to the human operators, that weren't experienced with nuclear reactors at all or very little.

Flawed design theory

* The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how the reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs produce less energy as they get hotter, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power. Chernobyl's RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and neutron-absorbing light water to cool the core. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing an RBMK reactor's temperature means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor's power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to dangerous level if the temperature rises. This was counter-intuitive and unknown to the crew.
* A more significant flaw was in the design of the control rods that are inserted into the reactor to slow down the reaction. In the RBMK reactor design, the control rod end tips were made of graphite and the extenders (the end areas of the control rods above the end tips, measuring 1-metre (3 ft) in length) were hollow and filled with water, while the rest of the rod – the truly functional part which absorbs the neutrons and thereby halts the reaction – was made of boron carbide. With this design, when the rods are initially inserted into the reactor, the graphite ends displace some coolant. This greatly increases the rate of the fission reaction, since graphite is more potent neutron moderator (a material that enables a nuclear reaction) and also absorbs far fewer neutrons than the boiling light water. Thus for the first few seconds of control rod activation, reactor power output is increased, rather than reduced as desired. This behavior is counter-intuitive and was not known to the reactor operators.
* The water channels run through the core vertically, meaning that the water's temperature increases as it moves up and thus creates a temperature gradient in the core. This effect is exacerbated if the top portion turns completely to steam, since the topmost part of the core is no longer being properly cooled and reactivity greatly increases. (By contrast, the CANDU reactor's water channels run through the core horizontally, with water flowing in opposite directions among adjacent channels. Hence, the core has a much more even temperature distribution.)
* To reduce costs, and because of its large size, the reactor had been constructed with only partial containment. This allowed the radioactive contaminants to escape into the atmosphere after the steam explosion burst the primary pressure vessel.
* The reactor also had been running for over one year, and was storing fission byproducts; these byproducts pushed the reactor towards disaster.
* As the reactor heated up, design flaws caused the reactor vessel to warp and break up, making further insertion of control rods impossible.

 

[chcr]

Heat exchangers are but one of the technologies.

True enough. It is the one I was addressing though. I like the bladeless turbine idea though, it's simple and elegant. I'm not so sure it's viable but I could certainly be wrong there.

what is wrong with the idea of geo-thermal, if you can sink a sealed pip into the ground, pump down filtered water, get steam back up, spins a turbine, steam is reclaimed and sent back down again. If done on a large scale it can be a valid source of clean energy.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but much better (and safer) in my opinion to heat and cool a working fluid that never actually boils down to the heat and then to a steam generator near or on the surface. Heat exchange.

 

[paul_valaru]

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but much better (and safer) in my opinion to heat and cool a working fluid that never actually boils down to the heat and then to a steam generator near or on the surface. Heat exchange.

Fine, be that way!

 

[jimpeel]

True enough. It is the one I was addressing though. I like the bladeless turbine idea though, it's simple and elegant. I'm not so sure it's viable but I could certainly be wrong there.

Didn't quite get the part about the rocket nozzle and the link to the "How it works" didn't work.

 

[jimpeel]

The battle reges over windmills.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03761.cfm

Green Civil War
Murray Op-Ed in Tech Central Station
by Iain Murray
November 26, 2003

Wind power may well be the least environmentally friendly idea ever proposed by environmentalists. That certainly seems to be the verdict of those who live near proposed and actual wind farm developments in both the US and UK.

Conservationists as committed as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and British television personality Dr. David Bellamy have come out against proposed uses of the technology. As a result, a degree of civil war has broken out in the environmental movement, with accusations of "NIMBYism" (the acronym refers to an aversion to new infrastructure projects, standing for Not In My Back Yard) flying around. One might even say that the controversy is generating a great deal of hot air.

The arguments over the proposed Cape Cod Wind Farm are a case in point. The proposal to build the USA's first offshore commercial wind-powered electricity generator in the waters off Cape Cod is partly a response to Massachusetts' new law requiring about 100,000 homes to be powered by renewable energy sources by 2009. The farm would consist of 170 wind turbines, each about 40 stories tall and covering over 28 square miles of shallow water off Hyannis, MA, and Martha's Vineyard. The farm would generate 420 megawatts of power. Proponents claim that this would replace the equivalent of 500,000 tons of coal or 113 million gallons of oil each year.

Yet the proposed benefits are not enough for some influential environmentalists. Citing the lack of a "programmatic environmental impact statement" and the absence of suitable state and federal scrutiny, Sen. Kennedy called the arguments for the project "loud rhetoric," writing in the Cape Cod Times, where he said, "Far more is at stake in the decision than our back yards, and I make no apology for opposing this project now.” Sen. Kennedy and other locals are joined by national conservation groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the International Wildlife Coalition. They point out that large marine wind turbine projects "may fragment vital bird habitat and alter migratory pathways."

Other environmental groups dismiss these concerns. Gary Skulnick of Greenpeace told the Cape Cod Times that, "Wind turbines don't make a lot of noise; they don't spew toxic chemicals. If I lived in the area, I would feel great about being on the cutting edge of innovation in this area. … You have to think of the big picture. If we don't reduce global warming, then Nantucket and all the beautiful beaches are going to disappear."

Similar arguments are talking place in the UK, although the issue is much further along as many wind farms have already been built. A long article in London's Observer on October 5 pointed out the many and varied objections locals and environmentalists are raising against the wind farms springing up around the country in an effort to meet the United Kingdom government's target of generating 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

Self-professed "left-wing environmentalist," Martin Wright, told the paper: "Since the Second World War, there's been a consensus that landscape matters…. That's broken down here. If people in London knew the place, they would be appalled. And yet we're portrayed as nuclear-loving nimbies in the press…. Wind turbines are a good idea in the right place.… But sticking hundreds of them on wild land is not a good idea. For a small, heavily populated country we have some stunning landscapes, but they're under threat of industrialization."

The article also points out the threat to local avian wildlife:

"Research shows, however, that wind farms are killing far more birds than the public realizes. A five-year study in California revealed that the Altamont Pass wind farm kills an average of 40 to 60 golden eagles a year, along with 'several hundred' hawks, falcons and other birds of prey. In Spain, a report commissioned by the regional government of Navarra concluded that 368 turbines at 10 sites had killed nearly 7,000 wild birds in a single year, including 409 vultures, 24 eagles, and 650 bats.

"In Germany, studies show turbines have killed dozens of rare red kites…. Red kites are a conservation success story, brought back from the brink of extinction in this area [of the UK], but two were killed at this small site alone last summer. Other rare British birds are also under threat as the turbines proliferate…. A farm of 27 turbines, each 325ft high, at Edinbane on Skye has planning consent, despite RSPB objections that the site was too close to sea eagles and several breeding pairs of golden eagles, as well as merlin and hen harriers. All four species have the highest possible legal protection."​

Finally, as energy consultant and TV personality Professor Ian Fells pointed out, "To meet the 2010 target, Britain will have to build 400 to 500 turbines each year. Each will be a 3MW machine, bigger than anything yet seen. 'I think they'll be doing well to get there by 2020,' Fell says. 'There's some wishful thinking in the latest White Paper. And wind power is not completely clean. You have to build huge concrete foundations and service roads and so on.'"

Fells' fellow TV star, David Bellamy has gone further. The conservationist has already led a march against one proposed new development and told the Manchester Evening News, "Wind farms don't work, -- they ruin people's lives, destroy the countryside, and harm wildlife. It beggars belief that certain members of the Green movement have bought into it."

There are plenty of reasons people are proposing these new commercial ventures, however. One proposed wind farm in West Virginia, would cost $300,000,000 to build, but would recover those costs and then some through various tax shelters and subsidies equaling $325,434,600. In many cases, the profit from this government largesse exceeds the income generated from electricity sales. Wind farm owners enjoy windfall profits at taxpayer expense. Green is very attractive when there are greenbacks involved whatever the harm to local avian life.

In the end, this is an argument between two extremes. The anti-wind forces are right in several ways. Their concerns about wildlife are genuine and justified (certainly more so, given the studies, than the theoretical harm attributed to anthropogenic (manmade) global warming). Yet perhaps more important is that they are correct when they say they are not nimbies. Their belief is not so much NIMBY as BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing, Anywhere, Near Anyone.