Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

NREL Adds Giant Wind Turbine to Research Site

By Bill Scanlon, NREL
May 5, 2011   |   19 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
May 5, 2011
Bill - if it is a "60Hz model" then why test "voltage and current at 1Hz to establish a power curve"?
Comment
2 of 19
May 6, 2011
It occurs to me that since the energy lost to friction in existing wind turbines has to be on the order of 5 - 10 % (my personal estimate, admittedly - may be too high but certainly isn't too low), eliminating 100% of it could not improve the efficiency by 100s of times. Having to provide the power to the magnets in the bearings would offset the reduction in friction versus standard designs, reducing any efficiency gains even further.
Comment
3 of 19
kwh
May 6, 2011
Use the ASC concept: HTSC stator-rotor, with no gearbox.

The article is full of ego and emotion, but not new technology.

The high costs of transporting parts, huge-crane erection,
high problems with maintenance so far up a high tower, are
far more than the advantages seem to speak to, for 3MW. Bla!
Comment
4 of 19
kwh
May 6, 2011
fireofenergy-150745:

For efficiency, 'Near ground' is 'near disaster' for wind.

Skin friction of land, turbulence from buildings, is all bad.
Velocities are slowed, become confused, are not a steady slip-stream,
one reason for tower height, apart from long-leveraged blades requiring same.
Comment
5 of 19
May 6, 2011
As a non-technical critic who is actually pro Wind Turbines - for the record Wind Mills are the multisailed structures used to produce high torque for grinding flour etc. - I would like to make one comment.

A family with fairly extravagent electrical use, would use 6MW/ann. Therefore, 2,000 such homes would use 12,000MW/ann. If the wind turbine is running at its rated power of 3MW/hr, then it could supply the 2,000 homes in 4,000 hours. However, there are roughly 8,760 hours each year. Therefore, it would seem that this turbine is not being sited in a suitable site; after all its production would seem to be less than 50% of the possible yield.

Surely for the expense of production and installation, we should be ensuring that wind turbines are installed on the best possible sites with enough wind to generate at peak production for more 60 - 70% of the time. Perhaps this site in Colorado would be better suited to a Photovoltaic array or a Solar Furnace? Of course, if the surrounding land is available for cropping or livestock production, then this extra electrical production may equate to excellent value for money from the land in question.
Comment
6 of 19
May 6, 2011
Indeed, 600 tons of steel, copper & magnet material, plus "70 truckloads" of concrete to only hold it against "90-100mph winds"? Really?

So, 600 tons of steel, etc. take 3000 tons of coal (yes, coal) to make. 70 truckloads of concrete take vast amounts of petroleum to mine/kiln the limestone, grind the aggregate, mix, truck & pour, but at least we're not counting the transmission losses, if this were a real system.

A coal power plant uses about 5000 tons of coal a day to generate 24,000MWHrs of juice, net. We have that invested to generate, maybe 24MWHrs, on some days? That's 1000 days to break even, if the windmill displaced coal generation; several times more if displacing gas firing, and almost forever if 'displacing' nuclear. Such a deal! Of course, all that doesn't even account for the construction, road building, transmission building, yadda, yadda. No wonder they worry about "expiring" subsidies being an issue for wind. It's all full of wind.
;]
Comment
7 of 19
May 6, 2011
Debu - great to see you searching for facts, although scammers do buy multiple web pages to seem like others back up their claims. The small veritcal axis wind turbine at the 2010 expo - how much power did it produce, from the article you read? My guess would be only enough to run a single hand-held hair dryer, but that's just a guess. '20% more efficient than a normal turbine' is PR fluff - what 'normal' turbine? 'Advantages' only count if they result in more power being produced than a horizontal axis turbine on a tower at the same location. In real life, 90% less power is usually the outcome with any vertical axis wind turbine, so bumping that up by 20% still leaves you with 88% less output. Scammers are very clever people.
Comment
8 of 19
May 6, 2011
To all breathing hard about wind vs coal, that's not the issue at all -- coal is a straw man. The key is environmental impact overall. Honest accounting, in other words. Wind machines operate on 2nd-order solar power. They consume large amounts of energy & CO2 emitters per installed MW. They run intermittently. They waste output in transmission and consume grid power when awaiting the right wind. They require construction of permanent concrete foundations, access roads, transmission/control structures, etc. (even if they pay up front for windmill teardown & removal -- which do?). And, they need frequent maintenance (which is what the article on new transmissions illustrates). And, there are the maintenance injuries -- just had one recently, when a blade buckled killing a maintenance guy.

Comparison with even present, 20% eff. solar PV is an unfair fight (for wind), because of the vastly reduced demands on production, installation & land consumption -- especially local solar (DG), which also builds a more robust grid and fits directly into CCA efforts around the country (you can read about that on this site as well).

The love affair with wind power is not about love, for the investors. It's about $ -- taxpayer/ratepayer $. How 'green'!
Comment
9 of 19
May 7, 2011
Dr Alex,

Where did you get your number of the amount if coal necessary for steel making from? Googling around I found this source that states: 'World crude steel production was 1.2 billion tonnes in 2009. Around 761 million tonnes of coking coal was used in the production of steel.'

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel/

And that is crude steel. Large part of steel is made from scrap metal, requiring even less energy.

For this turbine that would turn out to be less than 500 tonnes of coal.

Second thing you might want to take into consideration is the fact that this is a test site. They might have overdimensioned the base & tower to later test a larger turbine. The Vestas V90 3.0MW with 90 m high tower is only 309 tonnes total weight.

http://www.autonavzduch.cz/dokumenty/vestasV90-3MW.pdf

You claim a lot of energy is needed for the concrete base. Do you have solid figures, and how that relates to the energy produced by the turbine?

There have been numerous studies done on eroi of wind turbines. The eroi for large turbines is ~20. Easy to find, google for 'wind power eroi'.

Apparently, Cutler Cleveland has done a literature study for the eroi of wind and written about it on the oil drum: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085

I notice a lot of speculation in your posts, please back it up with solid evidence. As they stand now, I find your claims without merit.
Comment
10 of 19
May 7, 2011
Continuing for Anne... The use of EROI hides reality. The 'investment' is not immediate and monetary. It's all about full accounting, cradle to grave, since what's being held up as the "bad" form of energy production for comparison, is coal -- the easiest target one could imagine, given its maximal production of CO2 per Watt and its subsidies from poorly-regulated mining, its transport dependence on petroleum, on through unregulated emissions and to unregulated ash dumping.

So to prop (excuse the pun) wind up as a 'green' hero can only be respected if all those accounting lapses allowed coal aren't allowed for wind. EROI doesn't begin to do that. And, it doesn't begin to address the relative impacts & benefits of alternatives. This is exactly why efficiency & solar DG are being advocated by concerned groups.

As to "a lot of speculation in your posts", please indicate what you mean.
--
Dr. A. Cannara
Menlo Park, Calif.
650-400-3071
Comment
11 of 19
May 7, 2011
This should have appeared above...

Ok Anne, it's right to ask for facts, which is why I raise the issues with wind power, as currently promoted.

Indeed my figures for coal to steel come from an engineer in the industry. The rate is 5lbs coal per lb of carbon steel. Recycling helps (it's part of the efficiency leg of our future), but the entire chain of production & recycling must be accounted for, if we want to be honest -- sometimes a big "if" in the advocacy realm. So, if one accounts for more than just the coke production required to get the carbon into iron to make steel, the number is indeed about 5:1, minus whatever is recoverable from recycling -- after accounting for the fuel required to do that plus everything else involved in getting several hundred feet of steel tower to the point of erection. Then I've ignored the alloying burdens, which may be considerable as well -- again, accounting fully & honestly.

Actually, I credit the NREL site with more output than they installed, since a top line Siemens machine peaks at 5MW output, using 400 tons of steel and 1000 cubic meters of concrete, plus all the rest.
Comment
12 of 19
May 7, 2011
And this continues again, due to the comment interface not seeming to know what 2000 characters is...

For concrete, mining transporting & kilning of lime, producing aggregate, mixing, transporting, CO2 evolution, water, etc. all add up to a large burden for foundations of systems that can never generate as much power per acre as several (rather than hundreds) tons of solar PV. And, who's going to dig out that 1000 cubic meters of concrete years from now when the site is obsolete, for whatever reason -- cost? Engineers all know this, but the process of concrete production is documented many places, like those you can find.

That also applies to Vestas you mention (I know a Vestas sales guy). "Only" 309 tons? We can ask a local solar PV manufacturer how many kW of panels would come to total 309 tons. Again, this illustrates the profoundly low power density of wind. And, we its variability, which requires special grid-interface/storage gear. And, then the loss.

By the way, another engineer just sent me this example...

Google: "A few facts about wind turbines" - then scroll to the heading: "A few facts about wind turbines," which should bring up "Redneck USA" where you can click on the video. For starters, let's see: 30 concrete trucks = at least 500 yds. of concrete @ say $150/yd = $750K plus transportation costs + elaborate site prep. roads, and labor - just for the pad! + plus of course, a large ruined top of the mountain. Lifetime of unit "20-25 years" but gear box and generatior " 10-15 years."

Continued above to 1st in this chain of 3...
Comment
13 of 19
May 8, 2011
Anne - before you take DrA too seriously, here is a peek at his hidden agenda. This is a quote from one of his posts at another blog: "The Chinese are now pursuing what we developed 40 years ago, so maybe that will scare us into sense, so we complete the R&D necessary to fulfill the promise of safe nuclear power sufficient for millennia."
Cheers!
Comment
14 of 19
May 8, 2011
Dr Alex,

Your posts are mostly devoid of evidence - again. Nothing to support your position. Show some sources please. 'An engineer friend of mine' is not a credible source.

As for the number crunching you apparently find so hard to do, I can do it for you if you like. A base of 1000 m3 of concrete weighs about 2000 tonnes. CO2 emissions from concrete production are about 1.5 tonne CO2 per tonne of concrete, all production & mining included. So the base comes to 3000 tonnes, equal to 5 million kWh for an average generation mix of 600 g/kWh. That is less than a year's production and based on the figures *you* mentioned. I have no time to check whether a 1000 m3 concrete base is standard for a 3MW wind turbine.

'We can ask a local solar PV manufacturer how many kW of panels would come to total 309 tons. Again, this illustrates the profoundly low power density of wind'

More innuendo, without checking the facts. PV panel specs are not hard to find. A 200 W panel weighs about 15 kg. So for 1 tonne you get ~14 kW, for 309 tonnes about 4 MW. That is exclusive support structures, trackers, inverters. 4 MW of solar generally produces less energy per annum than 3 MW of wind. So you seem to be wrong again.

'Whose gonna dig out that concrete base 20 years from now'? Well, duh. The owner of the wind farm. That is just plain FUD you're spreading here. Sorry.

Again I note you prefer to keep everything fuzzy, use all kinds of exaggerating language to make a point that has no basis in fact.
Comment
15 of 19
May 8, 2011
Debu - hidden agendas only work if they stay hidden eh? On their home page, they proclaim that they are not allowed to solicit large investors to buy into their 'protoype' but I clicked on the 'more information plese' link, and the solicitations began. They are smart enough to know if you have access to 10 or 20 million $$ or not, which I did as principal investigator on a wind resource study project, so they really wanted me to recommend them as a great investment to the Tribal Government where I worked at the time. If they had lined up us as another sucker to buy investor shares in their sham org, they would spend it all on their salaries, and have lived very high wasting the investor's money, never producing any product. There's the motivation.
Comment
16 of 19
May 8, 2011
Anne - I like your math. Here is a little more: 20 years from now (or 30, as direct drive turbines do not have the weakest link -transmissions) the wind will still be blowing, so why even ask: 'Whose gonna dig out that concrete base 20 years from now'?
The answer: No One! The tower will last 40 or 50 years, so the owner will put a new turbine on the tower! Support roads are all there, grid connection is there, and we will still want clean energy, so no one will destroy a good wind power site. (and the new turbine will weigh less, so the crane rental cost will be half of the original)
Comment
17 of 19
May 8, 2011
fire - there were some sad events back in the 1970's where scam-artist wind farm developers were getting up-front grants, buying totally useless junk turbines and putting them on concrete foundations all over acres of leased land from farmers. When the turbines produced only one tenth the declared power, the scammers paid themselves millions of $$s in salaries and bonuses, and declared bankrupcy, leaving the farmer's fields scared and no more lease payments. To get their crop land back, the farmers had to pay to have the turbines removed and concrete dug out. Now almost all windfarms are required to post bonds for de-commissioning at end of life for the equipment.
Comment
18 of 19
May 9, 2011
tgearing,

And very likely, the decomissioning of a wind farm can be done at a negative cost due to the scrap value of the materials like iron and copper. Especially with the expected rise in costs of those commodities.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/01/09/decommissioning-study-says-scrap-value-more-than-cost-to-dismantle-turbines/
Comment
19 of 19
May 9, 2011
Surely, having gone to the trouble of getting planning permission for a wind farm or even one wind turbine, the sensible thing would be to erect a second on the same site; and simply not consider removing the infrastructure until it shows signs of decay. Most of the gadgetry that will become out-dated over the years, is likely to be replaceable and located in the nacelle. So, once we have found ideal sites, would it not be better to stick with the same and not search for new sites. This would also be best for the migrating birds as over the decades, they will learn to vary their flight paths. Besides, even migrating birds tend to avoid flying in the sort of wind conditions that will have the wind turbines rotating at peak production speeds; slowly turning blades are unlikely to cause a problem. Migrating birds also tend to fly at heights in the range of 28,000 feet - just a little above the highest wind turbine. Only as they ascend from and descend to feeding and breeding areas are they at risk, and in USA you seem to be placing wind farms in areas that would be unattractive to the birds!

Therefore, by all means ensure that the Wind Generation company has put aside funds in a bond to meet future eventualities. But lets hope that the funds are only ever used to erect the next generation of wind turbines, when the fabric of the first is showing signs of becoming unsafe.

I also agree with Dave Fisher, that wind turbines are responsible for a very low percentage of bird deaths. Pesticide use - now declining, glass windows and buildings - now increasing with human population demand, and netting and shooting for eating, pose far greater risks to their survival.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Solar Network International HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. Black & Veatch Corporation Stoel Rives LLP Natural Power SolPowerPeople, Inc. SolSolution
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters