Any straw to cling to...
In some areas, where the local grid is too unreliable, too distant, or too weak, diesel generators provide the power to the field coils when starting up. Once the windmill reaches a certain rpm, the field coils are powered by it's own generator.
On some smaller windmills, startup power is provided by batteries.
Nothing new.
Some Chinese generators don't need that startup power, because they use enormous permanent magnets in stead of field coils. Simpler, robuster, but not exactly the thing you'd want in a 200m high windmill because of size and weight.
You'd think an engineer would know such important details, wouldn't you?
Both sides are investing. The amount of crap propaganda has gone up considerably. And the tone is nastier and nastier.
Read the article. Diesel generators were needed to de-ice (presumably using resistive heating elements in the blades) before the wind turbine could run. Just another reality of "free energy" with "zero emissions." And of course there's the lubricants, hydraulic fluid (for variable pitch mechanism and brakes), bird strikes, and visual scarring.Any straw to cling to...
In some areas, where the local grid is too unreliable, too distant, or too weak, diesel generators provide the power to the field coils when starting up. Once the windmill reaches a certain rpm, the field coils are powered by it's own generator.
On some smaller windmills, startup power is provided by batteries.
Nothing new.
Some Chinese generators don't need that startup power, because they use enormous permanent magnets in stead of field coils. Simpler, robuster, but not exactly the thing you'd want in a 200m high windmill because of size and weight.
You'd think an engineer would know such important details, wouldn't you?
Both sides are investing. The amount of crap propaganda has gone up considerably. And the tone is nastier and nastier.
I decline to watch such info-videos but I followed the TX grid issues a while back. They were over reliant on sun shining/wind blowing, green energy sources that were not adequately reliable when the sh__ hit the wind turbines. This too is all manageable with more robust back-up power supplies. It will cost slightly more but a worthwhile expense to deliver a reliable 24/7 grid.Remind me exactly why we are supposed to be outraged in this case? Texas used diesel generators to restart frozen natural gas plants several years ago during one of their extended power outages due to weeks-long sub-freezing temperatures. Those turbines in Scotland service millions of homes: so if on balance, a handful of diesel generators kept power flowing to millions of homes seems like maybe a good harm-reduction tradeoff.
Or is this another perfect-is-always-the-enemy-of-the-good situation?
Yeah, lets keep promoting zero emissions while at the same time Diesel engines are used to keep the windmills going, maybe if the "Just stop oil" freaks dont find about them, they will stop throwing soup at paintings.Remind me exactly why we are supposed to be outraged in this case? Texas used diesel generators to restart frozen natural gas plants several years ago during one of their extended power outages due to weeks-long sub-freezing temperatures. Those turbines in Scotland service millions of homes: so if on balance, a handful of diesel generators kept power flowing to millions of homes seems like maybe a good harm-reduction tradeoff.
Or is this another perfect-is-always-the-enemy-of-the-good situation?
Been following Bjorn for a while. He does have a handle on taking care of people now first and climate second. The ridiculous nature of making electric cars, (the feel good solution )that only serves an elite doing my part answer while the bulk of people in poverty will never find a solution with this pet project. They need cheap energy now to survive and be able to eat and pay for energy. And this punish the farmers stupidity goes over like a lead balloon with food prices already beyond the many. But the people a hundred years from now will what, will have better life at the expense of today. Bjorn deals with the now and first things first.Bjorn Lomborg one of the smartest guys in this debate has a new book.. "Best Things First" where he lists 12 things we should focus on first that would help the most people cost effectively.
So let's see if we can put things into perspective. If sources are to be believed:Yeah, lets keep promoting zero emissions while at the same time Diesel engines are used to keep the windmills going, maybe if the "Just stop oil" freaks dont find about them, they will stop throwing soup at paintings.
WWW said:During December 60 turbines at Arecleoch and 11 at Glenn App were de-energised due to a cabling fault originating at Mark Hill wind farm. In order to get these turbines re-energised diesel generators were running for upwards of six hours a day.
...
Sixty turbines at Arecleoch Wind farm and 11 at Glenn App near Cairnrayn in South Ayrshire were affacted and connected to six huge diesel generators. The windfarms are operated by Scottish Power Renewables, a subsidiary of Spanish-based Iberdrola, which operates 1183 onshore turbines which can produce enough electricity to power two million homes.
...
Over 4000 litres of oil leaked from hydraulic units on turbines and sprayed over the countryside.
Is that bogus calculation supposed to mean something? First, you are assuming that 4000 liters were used to provide 7 TWh, that is not what I am reading, what I am reading is that 4000 leaked, not that only 4000 liters were used to energize the turbines, 4000 liters is what my car uses in a year. Second, it is irrelevant, because you are omitting the fact that they are using diesel turbines to keep the windmills going, can't you see the irony?So let's see if we can put things into perspective. If sources are to be believed:
So let's assume those 6 hours per day applied to every day in December. So that's 186 hours those 6 generators were running. There are 8,760 hours in a year, so the 6 generators ran for 2.1% of the year. 71 total turbines were effected, out of 1183, which is 6% of the fleet. Scotland delivered roughly 7 TWh in 2020 via wind power.
To deliver that total energy in a year, would require, the energy equivalent of:
1) Coal: 1.12 pounds per kWh, equivalent 7.8 billion pounds of coal
2) Natural gas: 7.36 cubic feet/kWh, equivalent to 51 billion cubic feet of natural gas
3) Petroleum : 0.08 gallons/kWh, 560 million gallons of petrol per year, or 2.1 billion liters
So again, just to be sure, 4000 liters leaked to provide 7 TWh is outrageous, but 2.1 billion liters burned isn't?
4000 liters leaked WHILE providing 7 TWh: if you read the story, the complaint was that the turbines leaked hydrolic fluid, not that the diesel generators leaked. And i'll go out on a limb and say that less than 2.1 billion liters were used to power those 6 generators for those 186 hours.Is that bogus calculation supposed to mean something? First, you are assuming that 4000 liters were used to provide 7 TWh, that is not what I am reading, what I am reading is that 4000 leaked, not that only 4000 liters were used to energize the turbines, 4000 liters is what my car uses in a year. Second, it is irrelevant, because you are omitting the fact that they are using diesel turbines to keep the windmills going, can't you see the irony?
You forgot to compute how much this costs, having 71 mills, which are extremely expensive all by themselves, with diesel engines running to keep them going. Do you find anything cost effective with this approach? Do you think this is a good business? Cant you see how ridiculous this is?
It doesn't matter how many liters were used. It is ridiculous and innefective. Also you have to agree that the zero emissions plan is ridiculous, that fossil fuels are needed, and that wind and solar are not the answer. Also, don't you think it is ironic? This is simply political, if these people had any sense, they would destroy the windmills and build nuclear power plants instead, but no, they have to use diesel engines because the left wants wind4000 liters leaked WHILE providing 7 TWh: if you read the story, the complaint was that the turbines leaked hydrolic fluid, not that the diesel generators leaked. And i'll go out on a limb and say that less than 2.1 billion liters were used to power those 6 generators for those 186 hours.
Every single power generation type maintains auxiliary power sources to deal with various situations. Nuclear power plants all have diesel generation capability, even natural gas and petroleum plants have such capacity for startup purposes or when grid conditions don't allow for cold starting directly from the grid. Even the original story said that the only reason generation was necessary was due to a grid fault, meaning that it was likely that without that fault no generation would have even been needed.
And fossil fuel plants also have such costs, so why do you discount them to zero for fossil fuel plants but not wind generation?
Why is perfection always the enemy of the good?
Why is perfection always the enemy of the good?
I'm going to use these if anyone complains about my grilling this weekend...lolIf you only want to see the negative you stopped learning. And that's sad. Very sad.
So it sounds like if there was no fault on the grid, and those wind turbines hadn't needed a diesel generator to run for 186 hours, you would be on board with wind generation, since no fossil fuels would have been burned? Or are you opposed purely on ideological grounds?It doesn't matter how many liters were used. It is ridiculous and innefective. Also you have to agree that the zero emissions plan is ridiculous, that fossil fuels are needed, and that wind and solar are not the answer.
"Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they are doing". I guess you were trying to quote that, but it seems that it is you who do not know anything about it to even bother to get the quote right.Spare them, dear lord, for they know nothing...
It's not as if the ICE has been outlawed. Mercedes and others have been testing ICEs running on hydrogen for a long time. A friend who's the dean for the chemistry department at a local university, drives an Audi on hydrogen. Took a while to get it, but it's been reliable. Of course, there isn't an infra for filling up yet, but it works well with the twelve experimental refill stations in the country. And her Audi has a 1.000 km (600 miles) range, so with a little planning it'll go anywhere.
Meanwhile a company in The Netherlands has developed a cheap, small, electric city car that charges from the onboard solar cells. That's the second one.
The technology is changing on a daily base. If you only want to see the negative you stopped learning. And that's sad. Very sad.
You motivated me to buy the new Lomborg book while I do not expect any surprises. BTW zero emissions is not on his list...Spare them, dear lord, for they know nothing...
lomborg said:Governments and philanthropists should focus on the 12 smartest things. Fix tuberculosis, malaria, and chronic disease, tackle malnutrition, improve education, increase trade, implement e-procurement, and secure land tenure. This will, at a low cost, improve the world amazingly.
“The cost is $35 billion a year. Spent on the 12 best solutions it could make the world’s poor incredibly much better off.
The benefits include saving 4.2 million lives each year and generating $1.1 trillion more for the world’s poor,” highlights Bjorn Lomborg.
actually some states are working on that...It's not as if the ICE has been outlawed. Mercedes and others have been testing ICEs running on hydrogen for a long time. A friend who's the dean for the chemistry department at a local university, drives an Audi on hydrogen. Took a while to get it, but it's been reliable. Of course, there isn't an infra for filling up yet, but it works well with the twelve experimental refill stations in the country. And her Audi has a 1.000 km (600 miles) range, so with a little planning it'll go anywhere.
CA said:California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order requiring that all new passenger cars and trucks sold in the state from 2035 be zero-emissions vehicles
golf carts that do that have been around for a while. EVs were invented before fossil fuel powered vehicles, but never became dominant because of poor energy density of batteries vs fossil fuel.Meanwhile a company in The Netherlands has developed a cheap, small, electric city car that charges from the onboard solar cells. That's the second one.
The anti-humanity anti-fossil fuel movement is worse than sad, it is harming poor people around the world.The technology is changing on a daily base. If you only want to see the negative you stopped learning. And that's sad. Very sad.
And anyway, you have to ask by what process is the hydrogen is created (electrolysis??) However it is done, the enrgy you get out from the hydrogen will be leass than the enrgy it takes to make it. So where does that energy come from?. Seems to me there is a tendency to avoid basic physics questions when disussing net zero."Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they are doing". I guess you were trying to quote that, but it seems that it is you who do not know anything about it to even bother to get the quote right.
Also, you are making a strawman about Mercedes cars and what not, can we get back to diesel engines being used to make windmills work?
Enter your email address to join: