Wind turbines

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What pollution results from renewable energy?

Distributed energy generation is a BIG advantage.

These are your idea of renewable energy. And I am a supporter of them.

I am a supporter of them. I just warn you that the clean running power has a dark side.

In another post, I mentioned that the majority of solar panels are made in Asian countries with almost no environmental regulations. They are also recycled or buried with no regulation. Much of the electronic waste in the US ends up being sent to bidders in Bangladesh and such places. A concerted plan needs to be enacted now to stop the pollution on the front and back end of solar power use or an environmental issue arises in the future.

The same for wind. The sheer volume of concrete, steel and electro-mechanical materials will become a problem as you must build renewables in a large number. A huge number. And they will never provide continuous power. So you over build. And build storage capacity. That will need to be huge and costly and will produce its own waste streams.

You naively assume just because renewables run clean, that they miraculously appear and disappear when their lives are done. They don't. And just like your computer, they cannot be just thrown in a dump. There are too many dangerous materials that can and will leach into the environment. And unlike your computer, the volume of tech-trash will be huge.

And your renewables will not meet the needs of the majority of people who now live in densely populated areas. If you have land and sky aplenty, you can work out a scheme to live on renewables. If you live in the middle of New York City, you need to generate a concentrated amount of energy and transmit it into the city. Diffuse energy at erratic amounts need to be base lined by constant stored power schemes.

I don't oppose renewables. I ask that you be pragmatic in its application. A balanced set of power sources base lined by nuclear power is a logical solution. A good plan to build and recycle our solar and wind devices is also needed now, not later. A way to store our excess renewable energy and transport it is a good thing. There will be no silver bullet.

The other argument is one Frank Lee keeps reminding us of. Reduce what we use. Economizing.

I grew up on a pacific island riding a water buffalo and carrying water up to our tin roofed house to cook our food on charcoal made from the trees that surrounded our ranch. We grew all our own food and traded our excess down in the town. My wife on the other hand? Her family is from Texas. All yall better know that her idea of simple living is a condo by the beach, a house in the mountains and a Fiat 500 turbo for the beach condo and a 4x4 for the mountain house and a Mercedes to drive between. I argue for a simpler lifestyle but she's way too cute to win an argument with.

The average American will not settle for a simpler life. The rest of the world wants to live like Americans. How do we prevent this wish from happening? You can't. So we must power this wish. With clean renewable power base lined by nuclear, geothermal, hydro or what ever baseline source makes sense.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

There is even more concrete and steel, and copper, and electronics, and water - used in nuclear power plants. It takes a lot of energy to mine and refine, and enrich, and transport nuclear fuel.

It takes 10-20 YEARS to build a nuclear power plant. The spent nuclear fuel has to sit in pools of water for a decade or more - and the water has to be pumped, and then processed afterward; because it is contaminated and radioactive.

A lot of energy is used to decommission a nuclear power plant - and it will probably take another 10-20 years to do this. It will take a lot of energy and steel and concrete to build the dry casks - which last only 100 years. Rinse and repeat, for a very long time.

++++++++++++++++

Wind power uses no fuel. So, it has a much lower energy overhead, and the foundations can be reused.

Nuclear waste sitting around for decades is a flaw of our stupid and useless government. It is not a flaw of the nuclear fuel cycle. The fuel demands for nuclear power plants can be predicted with about 99% certainty.
We know when they will need new fuel, to within a few months, precisely how much fuel they will need, what the waste is and it's what it's made up of.
The nuclear waste pools are far more dangerous than the reactor it's self.
If the clueless ignorant nuclear haters really had a clue they would be burning down Washington DC demanding nuclear fuel be recycled.
But no, they just want to be obstructionists and take a minor technical issue and turn it into a disaster looking for a time to happen.

[oil pan 4]

The difference between the hoover damn and a wind turbine is hoover has been producing power for 70 something years?
And will continue to provide power for probably another 100.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The difference between the hoover damn and a wind turbine is hoover has been producing power for 70 something years?
And will continue to provide power for probably another 100.

Cannot a wind turbine base and tower be reused with another generator, once the original fails? I'm sure the dam isn't still on it's first set of turbines.

[oil pan 4]

Yes.
The land leases for the wind company are almost always made for 50 to 99 years.
It would be a waste to only use them for 20 to 25 years.
After 20 years the electrical infrastructure to tie in the wind farm to the grid is still going to be like new.
The steel monopole and concrete base would probably only be 10% used up or less after 25 years.
When I went to wind power school no one had yet stripped down one kind of turbine and rebuild it as a completely different wind turbine. So far they are still being repaired with replacement parts, rebuild parts and upgrade parts.

[redpoint5]

That was my next question; even if the concrete base and pole are useful, do they ever replace the nacelle and blades with updated ones?

The trend has been to build 'em ever bigger, so I doubt there is much use in reusing much of the infrastructure built in previous decades.

[oil pan 4]

As far as I know there have not been any turbines rebuilt completely with next generation parts.
If a wind turbine has blades damaged they get replaced with reproduction parts or slightly improved design blades.
As far as required building a warn out wind farm with new stuff from the nacell pad up, I just have not heard of it being done. But there doesn't appear to be any reason that it can't be done.
For now it's cheaper to keep rebuild them out of like parts or suitable sub parts.
Once you get your land and grid tie in right of ways that can be up to half the cost of the wind farm.

[RedDevil]

They replace older windmills with bigger more efficient ones over here even if they are not end of life or damaged.
It is hard to get a concession to build a new wind farm, so replacing the mills in existing farms makes economical sense.

[oil pan 4]

United States loves building new wind farms.
One of the largest ones in the united states was built just far enough away that I can just barely see it at night.
There are so many new ones and expansions going up I don't even keep up with them any more.

[Piotrsko]

Wind river and a couple of others in Tehachapi were repurposed with newer turbines. Bigger, yes. Newer, smaller, more efficient? No. Not a lot of re use. Mitsubishi recycled some towers in cold water canyon but not all.

Same for Altamont