* 5308 hours (= 7.4 months = 60.6%) wind power was below 10% of rated capacity.
10 Replies to “We don’t need no giant bat blenders”
And I thought my Black Jack Win/Lose performance was Choppy!
Would be nice to 2 other comparison Charts
1. The regulation (throttling) of OTHER sources (on the Grid) required to make use of intermittent Wind & Solar
2. The mathematical calculations of load regulation theoretically required of other Sources; if the grid was NOT using Wind & Solar.
There has be damage to ALL the systems needed to respond to rapid changes in BOTH Generation & loading!
If the intention is to replace nuclear with wind, then the question must be asked – how does the actual output of wind compare with the actual output of nuclear? That result would be even more frightening.
Buricrats say its perfectly okay for some endangred birds to be chopped up by wind furbines and the eco-freakos could’nt care less with them and their idiotic green ideologies
Being a retired DC electrician/phone employee, I do have a background in DC power. doh. To presume we could use such an intermittent power source is ridiculous at best. Storage of power in times of little or no wind is staggering and I have worked in Pincher Creek when it was dead calm for days.
I have seen and know people who have used wind and solar on a small scale with great success. It does involve massive batteries, regulators and inverters, but can be done on a small scale.
Shamrock, I agree that to compare wind to nuclear in terms of energy density is almost mind numbing in scale. Just my six bits worth.
A great read on different forms of energy http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2
Excerpt.
One elementary source of comparison is to consider what it takes to refuel a coal plant as opposed to a nuclear reactor. A 1000-MW coal plant – our standard candle – is fed by a 110-car “unit train” arriving at the plant every 30 hours – 300 times a year. Each individual coal car weighs 100 tons and produces 20 minutes of electricity. We are currently straining the capacity of the railroad system moving all this coal around the country. (In China, it has completely broken down.)
A nuclear reactor, on the other hand, refuels when a fleet of six tractor-trailers arrives at the plant with a load of fuel rods once every eighteen months. The fuel rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. They will sit in the reactor for five years. After those five years, about six ounces of matter will be completely transformed into energy. Yet because of the power of E = mc2, the metamorphosis of six ounces of matter will be enough to power the city of San Francisco for five years.
John: Re: Fuel Rods
Thanks!!
When I was kid–Sask Power had a mobile display unit that came to our High School. They compared the efficiency of the fuel rods to having the ability to reduce the fuel consumption of a diesel powered generator so that instead of burning one 45 Imp. gallon drum of diesel every hour, it would consume a thimble full of fuel with zero emission.
Instead of building inefficient wind turbines and installing smart meters that show an addition 20% more than we actually consume, Sask Power should maybe look at a nuclear plant.
The only feasible way to store wind generated electricity is pumped storage – massive hydro facilities. Why don’t the politicians who are wind opponents harp on this, and demand the greens answer where they intend to put these mega engineering projects.
Sask Power was looking at Nuclear. In the dying days of the Devine government, AECL wanted to build a Candu 3 reactor in Sask. They were going to build it as it was in the development stages. The NDP won the next election in Sask and this was cancelled. Even the Union fools celebrated losing jobs for the next 10 years of construction. The NDP, job killers.
I have several of the cursed bird blenders sitting in line of sight across the river from me. The really BIG ones too, 180ft blade length. That’s radius, not diameter.
If we actually depended on those things for power we’d be blacked out about half the time. They’re sitting still every other time I look at them, particularly when the air temp is below 0F.
Very good essay John, this would drive the final nail into the coffin of
so-called “Renewable energy” if everyone read this!
And I thought my Black Jack Win/Lose performance was Choppy!
Would be nice to 2 other comparison Charts
1. The regulation (throttling) of OTHER sources (on the Grid) required to make use of intermittent Wind & Solar
2. The mathematical calculations of load regulation theoretically required of other Sources; if the grid was NOT using Wind & Solar.
There has be damage to ALL the systems needed to respond to rapid changes in BOTH Generation & loading!
If the intention is to replace nuclear with wind, then the question must be asked – how does the actual output of wind compare with the actual output of nuclear? That result would be even more frightening.
Buricrats say its perfectly okay for some endangred birds to be chopped up by wind furbines and the eco-freakos could’nt care less with them and their idiotic green ideologies
Being a retired DC electrician/phone employee, I do have a background in DC power. doh. To presume we could use such an intermittent power source is ridiculous at best. Storage of power in times of little or no wind is staggering and I have worked in Pincher Creek when it was dead calm for days.
I have seen and know people who have used wind and solar on a small scale with great success. It does involve massive batteries, regulators and inverters, but can be done on a small scale.
Shamrock, I agree that to compare wind to nuclear in terms of energy density is almost mind numbing in scale. Just my six bits worth.
A great read on different forms of energy
http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2
Excerpt.
One elementary source of comparison is to consider what it takes to refuel a coal plant as opposed to a nuclear reactor. A 1000-MW coal plant – our standard candle – is fed by a 110-car “unit train” arriving at the plant every 30 hours – 300 times a year. Each individual coal car weighs 100 tons and produces 20 minutes of electricity. We are currently straining the capacity of the railroad system moving all this coal around the country. (In China, it has completely broken down.)
A nuclear reactor, on the other hand, refuels when a fleet of six tractor-trailers arrives at the plant with a load of fuel rods once every eighteen months. The fuel rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. They will sit in the reactor for five years. After those five years, about six ounces of matter will be completely transformed into energy. Yet because of the power of E = mc2, the metamorphosis of six ounces of matter will be enough to power the city of San Francisco for five years.
John: Re: Fuel Rods
Thanks!!
When I was kid–Sask Power had a mobile display unit that came to our High School. They compared the efficiency of the fuel rods to having the ability to reduce the fuel consumption of a diesel powered generator so that instead of burning one 45 Imp. gallon drum of diesel every hour, it would consume a thimble full of fuel with zero emission.
Instead of building inefficient wind turbines and installing smart meters that show an addition 20% more than we actually consume, Sask Power should maybe look at a nuclear plant.
The only feasible way to store wind generated electricity is pumped storage – massive hydro facilities. Why don’t the politicians who are wind opponents harp on this, and demand the greens answer where they intend to put these mega engineering projects.
Sask Power was looking at Nuclear. In the dying days of the Devine government, AECL wanted to build a Candu 3 reactor in Sask. They were going to build it as it was in the development stages. The NDP won the next election in Sask and this was cancelled. Even the Union fools celebrated losing jobs for the next 10 years of construction. The NDP, job killers.
I have several of the cursed bird blenders sitting in line of sight across the river from me. The really BIG ones too, 180ft blade length. That’s radius, not diameter.
If we actually depended on those things for power we’d be blacked out about half the time. They’re sitting still every other time I look at them, particularly when the air temp is below 0F.
Very good essay John, this would drive the final nail into the coffin of
so-called “Renewable energy” if everyone read this!