Wind Turbines: The end is nigh?


valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,844
AS I say, fiddle around on this website and you'll get better information than whoever is whispering into your plug sockets.
If you don't know the difference between a historic and foretasted data, Sweat Jesus is your only hope.
 

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
No it isn't a fact as amply demonstrated yesterday. They are moving their wind fleet offshore. Why do you lie as well?
The onshore wind turbines have been supported and invested in in Poland for a long time, it's only the current populist, coal loving government who changed things around. It's very likely the obstacles to wind will be removed in the near future.

The true is, idiots only now realized the CO2 emission costs are on the raise, coal energy cost is on the raise. The narrative one year ago was that the renewable energy is a luxury which less wealthy countries like Poland simply cannot afford. It's only today when they realize, the coal is not only dirty and kills people, but it's also expensive.
The first time in the history wind energy is cheaper from coal energy.

Polish populists love coal, as it's their 'national gold', the thing is, the coal production in Poland is on a decline, available coal resources are on decline and coal usage increases, so Poland today imports record high amounts of coal from Russia, which is obviously not seen as a good thing in the current political environment.
 

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
You also need the completion of the European grid to ensure local no wind days are covered by the end elsewhere.
I see the future as minimum grid, and maksimum energy production near use. The energy transmission costs will exceed the energy production costs in the future, so even if you'd have free nuclear power, it will be more expensive than renewable, as renewable can be produced near the usage and nuclear requires transmission. The only missing component today is energy storage, but this is coming.

Imagine everyone has energy storage at home (let's say like Tesla home batteries, electric cars could do too). Homes give to the grid when charged and take when they need. Homes could earn money selling to the grid.
Energy cost to businesses would be at market rates, changing 24 hours, getting more expensive when the use increases, cheaper when the use decreases or production raises. Businesses would amend, charge whenever the electricity is cheapest, potentially also sell back in the peak times. Energy price can change every minute, every second, and smart systems in your home or business would set purchase/sell parameters based on your preference and acceptance levels.
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,844
The onshore wind turbines have been supported and invested in in Poland for a long time, it's only the current populist, coal loving government who changed things around. It's very likely the obstacles to wind will be removed in the near future.

The true is, idiots only now realized the CO2 emission costs are on the raise, coal energy cost is on the raise. The narrative one year ago was that the renewable energy is a luxury which less wealthy countries like Poland simply cannot afford. It's only today when they realize, the coal is not only dirty and kills people, but it's also expensive.
The first time in the history wind energy is cheaper from coal energy.

Polish populists love coal, as it's their 'national gold', the thing is, the coal production in Poland is on a decline, available coal resources are on decline and coal usage increases, so Poland today imports record high amounts of coal from Russia, which is obviously not seen as a good thing in the current political environment.
So are you saying that off - shore wind will be increased to replace the of-shore wind which will be decommissioned. Are you saying the the total wind capacity will increase, stay the same or decrease as a result of this decision?
 

valamhic

Banned
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,844
I see the future as minimum grid, and maksimum energy production near use. The energy transmission costs will exceed the energy production costs in the future, so even if you'd have free nuclear power, it will be more expensive than renewable, as renewable can be produced near the usage and nuclear requires transmission. The only missing component today is energy storage, but this is coming.

Imagine everyone has energy storage at home (let's say like Tesla home batteries, electric cars could do too). Homes give to the grid when charged and take when they need. Homes could earn money selling to the grid.
Energy cost to businesses would be at market rates, changing 24 hours, getting more expensive when the use increases, cheaper when the use decreases or production raises. Businesses would amend, charge whenever the electricity is cheapest, potentially also sell back in the peak times. Energy price can change every minute, every second, and smart systems in your home or business would set purchase/sell parameters based on your preference and acceptance levels.
Transmission losses, losses in transformers and through resistance in cables on the Island of Ireland is 8%.

If 3000 MW is being generated and 2760 is being uses and 240 is heating the air. So the air is being heated by 240 million watts. There is also the heat from appliances dissipated into the air.It certainly does not bring its temperature down.
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,988
There reason I raised the issue of the Atom's structure (Proton, Neutron and Electron) was to test Holland's knowledge and understanding if the subject. But there was a second issue. The Proton never changes, there are either 1,2 , 8, 13, 26, 79 , 92 and so on. Elements have an exact discrete number of Protons. Iron 26 , gold 79 etc. It means that for over 13 billion years, nature has counted precisely. nature counts down to the very minute level. Nature allows for about 100 stable elements but there are no hybrids in between them. There are no 34 and a half elements.
Nothing changes you utter idiot. You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

View attachment 1524

View attachment 1525
 
Last edited:

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
Transmission losses, losses in transformers and through resistance in cables on the Island of Ireland is 8%.

If 3000 MW is being generated and 2760 is being uses and 240 is heating the air. So the air is being heated by 240 million watts. There is also the heat from appliances dissipated into the air.It certainly does not bring its temperature down.
The costs to build and maintain the grid. Especially where you have hugely centralized sources of power generation like for example nuclear. This are huge costs, which will be proportionally bigger and bigger to the energy production costs over time, while the renewable become cheaper and can be produced close to the usage, decentralized.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,552
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Transmission losses, losses in transformers and through resistance in cables on the Island of Ireland is 8%.

If 3000 MW is being generated and 2760 is being uses and 240 is heating the air. So the air is being heated by 240 million watts. There is also the heat from appliances dissipated into the air.It certainly does not bring its temperature down.
What? I mean what?

Your ignorance of the mechanisms by which the earth is warmed and cooled is absolutely shocking! You are clearly suggesting that electricity transmission losses from renewables are making a substantial contribution to global warming! You have lost it altogether.

Have a little think about where wind power ultimately comes then ponder a little on the law of conservation of energy and get back to us.

Sweet Christ Jesus thank you for keeping at least some of the many arrogant ignoramuses you created out of power in the real world!
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,588
There reason I raised the issue of the Atom's structure (Proton, Neutron and Electron) was to test Holland's knowledge and understanding if the subject. But there was a second issue. The Proton never changes, there are either 1,2 , 8, 13, 26, 79 , 92 and so on. Elements have an exact discrete number of Protons. Iron 26 , gold 79 etc. It means that for over 13 billion years, nature has counted precisely. nature counts down to the very minute level. Nature allows for about 100 stable elements but there are no hybrids in between them. There are no 34 and a half elements.
My eyes hurt when I read this level of utter ignorance.
 

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
So are you saying that off - shore wind will be increased to replace the of-shore wind which will be decommissioned. Are you saying the the total wind capacity will increase, stay the same or decrease as a result of this decision?
Honest answer can only be: I don't know. The politics may change, the sentiments may change, the economy environment may chance.
However, I don't see a reason why the off-shore wind farms would decrease in capacity. The key is to get as much as possible and from as diverse mix of sources as possible. A diversification is very important here, as we're all aware, the renewables are usually not constant, the wind isn't constant, the sun isn't constant.

Also note, we're tackling two separate issue here:
1. SMOG, PM cancerogen particles directly affecting human health
2. CO2 emmsion affecting the climate in the long run

Moving away from coal and solid fuels towards natural gas already tackles the first issue, as natural gas burns clean.
Moving to renewables tackles the second issue.

Therefore a mix of renewables, backed by natural gas is a perfect temporary mix, until the time we can fully move to renewables. The natural gas dependance should be decreasing over time.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,552
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Honest answer can only be: I don't know. The politics may change, the sentiments may change, the economy environment may chance.
However, I don't see a reason why the off-shore wind farms would decrease in capacity. The key is to get as much as possible and from as diverse mix of sources as possible. A diversification is very important here, as we're all aware, the renewables are usually not constant, the wind isn't constant, the sun isn't constant.

Also note, we're tackling two separate issue here:
1. SMOG, PM cancerogen particles directly affecting human health
2. CO2 emmsion affecting the climate in the long run

Moving away from coal and solid fuels towards natural gas already tackles the first issue, as natural gas burns clean.
Moving to renewables tackles the second issue.

Therefore a mix of renewables, backed by natural gas is a perfect temporary mix, until the time we can fully move to renewables. The natural gas dependance should be decreasing over time.
I'd only add that there's a third factor: the strategic issues relating to natural gas -- issues that the Poles are particularly sensitive to.
 

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
I'd only add that there's a third factor: the strategic issues relating to natural gas -- issues that the Poles are particularly sensitive to.
Valid point, however...

The rapid increase in the volumes of coal being imported from Russia is sensitive too and the rulling party has big troubles explaining the trend even to their core supporters:

A new record of coal imports to Poland

In the first ten months of 2018, coal imports to Poland exceeded 16 million tonnes - according to Eurostat data.


The vast majority of imported coal - 69 percent. - came from Russia.

Thus, the yearly record of coal imports from 2011, which amounted to 15 million tonnes of raw material, was also beaten.

The increase in imports is accompanied by a decline in coal mining in the country. According to data from the Industrial Development Agency, from the beginning of 2018 until the end of November, Polish mines extracted in total about 58.6 million tons of coal, compared to nearly 60.4 million tons at the same time in 2017 (a decrease by approximately 1.8 million tons), and the volume of sales of this raw material amounted to approximately 57.8 million tonnes, against approx. 60.8 million tonnes in eleven months of 2017 (a decrease of approximately 3 million tonnes).
A new record of coal imports to Poland


Coal import from Russia was one of the main areas where the current rulling party used to attack the predecessor on. Now, they're in charge and the import from Russia didn't stop, moreover it rapidly increases.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,475
Hitachi Sees $2.8 Billion Hit on U.K. Nuclear Halt, Nikkei Says

Hitachi pulling out of UK Wylfa nuclear project. It always amazed me how nonchalant we were about this. A nuke only 70 miles from Dublin. But, it seems to be no more. On one hand the UK govt was excoriated for guaranteeing a high price to EDF for its nuke, the attempt to extract a better deal here, has resulted in the project collapsing. Even after taking a massive charge/writedown, it seems investors a breathing a sigh of relief that Hitachi are out of it.

While I've no axe to grind against nuclear power, it does seem like it is not economic in the present day.

So, that leaves wind power backed up by gas as the way to go, and for once we did the right thing.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,552
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Hitachi Sees $2.8 Billion Hit on U.K. Nuclear Halt, Nikkei Says

Hitachi pulling out of UK Wylfa nuclear project. It always amazed me how nonchalant we were about this. A nuke only 70 miles from Dublin. But, it seems to be no more. On one hand the UK govt was excoriated for guaranteeing a high price to EDF for its nuke, the attempt to extract a better deal here, has resulted in the project collapsing. Even after taking a massive charge/writedown, it seems investors a breathing a sigh of relief that Hitachi are out of it.

While I've no axe to grind against nuclear power, it does seem like it is not economic in the present day.

So, that leaves wind power backed up by gas as the way to go, and for once we did the right thing.
Not enough of the right thing. Not by a long shot yet.
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,988
Not enough of the right thing. Not by a long shot yet.
Other areas of renewables aren't getting the same level of investment yet. The Atlantic coast of Ireland and Western Scotland are ripe for tidal (extremely reliable) and wave energy (less reliable than tidal more reliable than wind). This area is seriously under represented.

Solar farms are having some level of investment in southern Europe, but with huge farms and interconnectors planned for the Sahara.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,552
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Other areas of renewables aren't getting the same level of investment yet. The Atlantic coast of Ireland and Western Scotland are ripe for tidal (extremely reliable) and wave energy (less reliable than tidal more reliable than wind). This area is seriously under represented.

Solar farms are having some level of investment in southern Europe, but with huge farms and interconnectors planned for the Sahara.
There are still serious barriers to all these technologies (with the possible exception of solar), but research is ongoing.

There's a great wave power system in the little Basque village of Mutriku. The power plant is integrated into the town's new breakwater.

[video=youtube;CO5vPDxMykI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO5vPDxMykI[/video]

[video=youtube;9iFNFG7rLMs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iFNFG7rLMs[/video]
 

Voluntary

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
2,870
Anyone knows whene's the peak electricity usage time in Ireland? Is it daytime in summer months (July/August)?
 
Top