Musk beats deadline for building world's biggest battery

November 24, 2017
Elon Musk, Tesla Factory, Fremont (CA, USA) in 2011. Credit: CC BY 2.0

Entrepreneur Elon Musk has won a US$50 million bet by beating a 100-day deadline for building a giant battery to help South Australia avoid energy blackouts, officials said.

State Premier Jay Weatherill said testing of the massive lithium ion would begin within days, ahead of the December 1 deadline Musk set for himself when he signed off on the project earlier this year.

Musk had pledged to build the battery in the South Australian outback for free if it was not completed within the 100 days. He estimated that would cost at least US$50 million—local authorities will now pick up the tab.

The entrepreneur behind electric carmaker Tesla made the pledge in response to power woes in South Australia, which was last year hit by a state-wide blackout after severe winds from an "unprecedented" storm tore transmission towers from the ground.

"South Australia is set to have back-up power in place this summer through the world's largest lithium ion battery, which is set to be energised for the first time in the coming days as it enters a phase of regulatory testing," Weatherill said in a statement late Thursday.

Musk's Tesla Powerpack is connected to a wind farm operated by French energy firm Neoen and is expected to hold enough power for thousands of homes during periods of excess demand that could result in blackouts.

South Africa-born Musk was a founder of payments company PayPal, electric carmaker Tesla Motors and SpaceX, maker and launcher of rockets and spacecraft.

He is also chairman of SolarCity, a solar panel installer recently bought by Tesla.

He has envisaged Tesla as a company that can help reduce emissions by not only selling people electric cars, but also generating and storing the solar energy that powers them.

Australia is one of the world's worst per capita greenhouse gas polluters, due to its heavy use of coal-fired .

Explore further: Elon Musk's Tesla to build world's largest battery in Australia

Related Stories

Tesla dangles $2.8B to bring SolarCity into its orbit

June 22, 2016

Electric car maker Tesla Motors wants to buy solar panel maker SolarCity for up to $2.8 billion in an attempt to create a one-stop shop for cleaner energy as consumers become more concerned about fossil fuels harming the ...

Tesla shares jump on Musk 'tease' in tweet

March 30, 2015

Tesla Motors shares jumped Monday after co-founder Elon Musk tweeted that the company would unveil as "major" new product line next month, leaving analysts guessing.

Recommended for you

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...

153 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2017
For every Musk detractor, he seems to have at least 2 accomplishments to shut them up.

Each.
knowphiself
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2017
can some one please gently tell Elon he has a hundred years of catching up to do. It's called Swedish stone and it was used by Henry T Moray . some kind of radio-isotope that interacted with cosmic rays and powered mr Morays vehicles. So essentially not powered by a battery but by a radio... This concept later taken up by the Walt Disney corporation as a plot in the feature "the absent minded professor" later remade as the nutty professor ect ect . worlds best battery? size & power is like zeros to google. lots of love x:)
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2017
I think the interesting thing that this particle drives home is how simple battery systems are to set up. Once you have the factory to make batteries in large numbers there is not much else needed to create functioning systems (unlike with conventional powerplants or even conventional storage solutions)
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2017
For every Musk detractor, he seems to have at least 2 accomplishments to shut them up.

Each.


Now let's put the hype down and bring things to proportion.

The system has 129 MWh of capacity. The average Australian household energy demand is 14,600 kWh a year, or 40 kWh a day.

That means the battery has a backup capacity of 3,225 household-days. That is to say, it can fully sustain 3,225 households for a day, 460 households for a week, 107 households for a month etc. There are 727,676 dwellings (households) in South Australia according to the 2011 census. Spread evenly among them, the battery can manage 6 minutes on the grid.

However, that is not possible because the maximum output power is just 100 MW; meanwhile there are more than 1,500 MW of wind power in the SA grid. In the latest blackout, 330 MW of import capacity was lost, and 315 MW of wind power went offline suddenly.

Elon Musk's battery is totally inadequate to deal with these problems.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2017
I think the interesting thing that this particle drives home is how simple battery systems are to set up.


How does it do that?

I can build you a 100 MW conventional powerplant in 100 days. Just give me enough money to spend.

Of course, we don't need to count the time required for all the bureaucracy like zoning and permits, insurance etc. which can be done well in advance before announcing the whole project.
betterexists
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
Even if U.S Shuns Renewable Energy, China with a huge Bank Balance has Courted it. Hence, WORLD WILL CHANGE FOR SURE !
China of This Century is like U.S of prior ones AND similar to Britain of times still earlier ! EVEN WITHOUT ENGLISH !
SamB
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
For every Musk detractor, he seems to have at least 2 accomplishments to shut them up.


Amen to that!
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2017
Eikka
The average Australian household energy demand is 14,600 kWh a year
When you say 'energy' - do you mean electricity? The average Australian home uses far less electricity than that. https://www.billr...y-usage/

Very interesting - this look at the new Tesla truck. If the cost announcement holds up - there is obviously something big coming down the pike in terms of battery cost. https://electrek....c-truck/
One way or another - the cost of batteries is going to continue down - as will the cost of wind and solar - increasing the chances of seeing a lot more of these projects.
docroc67
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2017
I am an admirer of Musk and his imagination and stick-to-it-iveness. I would point out that the article sort of implies that the new battery would have solved the problem caused by the huge winds that ripped transmission towers out of the ground. Obviously, if you have no cables to deliver power, all the batteries in the world won't fix the problem. There, are, of course, other benefits of batteries, as the article mentions.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2017
Actually, the problem Musk was trying to solve was to deliver a very large battery of a specified capacity on or before a specified date. Not to solve the entire electrical storage capacity of the grid, locally or globally. He succeeded in solving the problem he contracted for.

Obviously batteries are a partial solution at best to the intermittent generating nature of most alternate energy sources. But they are a good fit in many circumstances.
betterexists
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
Biggest Battery in a Short time - He did this...Very Good, But Why Did He Scare People about AI? I think of Solar Panels of the Future Flying high over ALL Cars on the Road as high as Mount Everest and Rolling up in a jiffy before flyovers are approached! May be we have materials that roll up and straighten up like that OR MAY BE NOT ! Yes, it may Not be Feasible in certain Locations....We Already have GPS & Google Maps ! Yes, Not near Airports where the Planes Descend down!
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2017
" in the SA grid. In the latest blackout, 330 MW of import capacity was lost, and 315 MW of wind power went offline suddenly."

Yeah, due to the inability to provide just a few tens of Megawatts more for a while. The battery cures that.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2017
"I can build you a 100 MW conventional powerplant in 100 days. Just give me enough money to spend."

Really? And where are you going to site it, and get the fuel to run it? Who will let you add more pollution to the area?
unrealone1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2017
Fossil fuel power provides Adelaide 2000 mwh of power 24/7, why did they Blow it up?
Refurbishment cost would have been miniscule compared to all the double AA batteries to run Adelaide 24/7..
"Renewable" means made in China. All the wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 years, there all made in China.
To replace a 2000 mwh power station with 3 mwh turbines you need 660 turbines, that's if all the turbines are running 100 % all the time.
Total material for 660 windturbines?
Total material for 2000 mwh cola power plant?
Elon Musk is a God, any one who can design there own rocket to reach the ISS better than NASA and land it on a small platform is an inspiration.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2017
The system has 129 MWh of capacity. The average Australian household energy demand is 14,600 kWh a year, or 40 kWh a day
Am I missing something here? These systems are supposed to store excess energy to fill in gaps, not continuous power 24/7... right? And certainly not for full capacity during extended power outages. Only systemwide improvements and redundancy can do this.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 25, 2017
unreal1
Total material for 660 windturbines?
Total material for 2000 mwh cola power plant?

Total fuel for 660 windturbines - 0
Total fuel for 2000 mwh coal plant - approx 6 million tons per year - https://gizmodo.c...s-a-year
Total toxic fly ash from wind turbines - 0
Total toxic fly ash from a coal plant - 130 million tons a year - https://www.epa.g...h-basics
Total toxic air pollution from a coal plant - https://content.s...ollution
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2017
We are still waiting for our PowerWall II battery system, having put down a deposit.

I need a different inverter and a little more PV capacity as well. The inverters in PV systems are slaved to the line frequency. If there is none, they do not produce power. I was going to dodge that by hooking up my emergency generator, and giving the PV system crossovers for timing.

In six months, I will have the capacity to be independent for house and two cars.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2017
I see little by little some Technology Deniers and skeptics of EVs falling into line now that reality is obvious.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2017
I see little by little some Technology Deniers and skeptics of EVs falling into line now that reality is obvious.
I see little Mr ImeIme is back and craving attention. Must be tuff around the holidays eh George?
We are still waiting for our PowerWall II battery system, having put down a deposit
-and as always, nobody gives a shit. Nobody has ever indicated that they gave a shit have they?

And yet here you are.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2017
" nobody gives a shit."

People always care about basic decency.

Real people, that is.
TrollBane
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2017
What nobody here really gives a shit about is the tedious personal dispute between gkam and TGOO. Which is why I have both on ignore when I am signed in.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2017
"What nobody here really gives a shit about is the tedious personal dispute between gkam and TGOO."

And bad language?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2017
Good for Musk. Showing that storage can be flexible and easily extensible is an important advance, and this isn't just science, it's technology and engineering. Making money from it is bonus. I expect he'll aggressively adopt new technologies for storage and generation as they become viable. He's currently wiping the floor with the fossil fuel guys. Look for them to try financial tricks to destroy him. I sincerely hope he's watching for that.
mackita
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2017
Musk actually increases the fossil fuels demand. It's quite apparent for everyone, who can think and calculate.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2017
@mak #russiantroll #climatedenier lies again.
tekram
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2017
Rooftop Solar Provides 48% Of South Australia Power, Pushing Grid Demand To Record Low.
https://cleantech...ord-low/
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2017
mack
Musk actually increases the fossil fuels demand
You'll have to splain that one to us mack. Are you talking about the power walls, or the Telsa all electric cars? Please explain your reasoning as to how either one of these increased fossil fuels demand...
mackita
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2017
I'm talking about everything. And what I'm saying is no secret as everyone can calculate the economical feasibility of renewable business for itself. There are no secret information. Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent. For example, to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Also, the wind turbines only work when there's wind, although not too much, and the solar panels only work during the day and then only when it's not cloudy. The energetic and material demands of their backup aren't even included in this calculation.
snoosebaum
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2017
A , 2nd , for Eikka
http://market-tic...t=232614
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Rear Earth Magnet Toxic waste.
https://www.thegu...ollution
http://www.dailym...ale.html
8mwh Wind turbine uses 6000 tonnes of concrete and steel.
What is the cradle to grave of CO2 output for the mining manufacturing install maintaining and then recycling after 20 years of 250 Turbines to replace 2000 mwh coal plant?
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2017
Musk actually increases the fossil fuels demand. It's quite apparent for everyone, who can think and calculate.
( mackita )

Actually, everyone that can think can think that a huge battery to store the energy from renewables would mean less potential need for fossil fuels thus can be used to actually DEcrease the fossil fuels demand.
Apparently you are not one of those "everyone" who can "think".
unrealone1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
How are the 250, 8 mwh, 6000 tonne wind turbines made in China "Renewables" made?
Is CO2 emitted during the manufacture ?

Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages
https://www.thegu...ollution
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
How are the 250, 8 mwh, 6000 tonne wind turbines made in China "Renewables" made?

So? If they produce more energy during their lifete than it took to make them the net balance is all good.
8and once these are up and running all future turbines can be created using their renewable energy, so the initial CO2 usage drops over time and the balance gets ever better)

By your 'argument' one could never do anything that benefits the envronment because one has to invest energy into it first.
That that is the 'argument' of someone with room-temperature IQ should be obvious...even to you.

Don't waste our time with such inanities.
Soundgardener
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
"China of This Century is like U.S of prior ones AND similar to Britain of times still earlier ! EVEN WITHOUT ENGLISH!"

Or an alphabet, for that matter (not a dig, btw).
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
If they produce more energy during their lifetime(?) than it took to make them the net balance is all good.
This is just the problem, that they will not. We have not enough of coal and oil for to replace them with solar and wind plants. Many elements necessary for "renewable energetics" are about to deplete way sooner than fossil fuel reserves. The problems with ecology of rare earth mining we can neglect completely - the worse is, the energetic politics of USA will be dependent on imports of raw materials and technologies from their political rival China. I really don't think, I'm a #Russian troll, as I support the energetic solutions, which are collectively ignored both by USA, both Russia. These solutions are based on new inventions and findings like this one.
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
"China of This Century is like U.S of prior ones"


The difference is, the progress of China is STILL based on copying of Western know-how and utilization of classical technologies (wind mills, solar cells) - not completely new ones (like the USA or Europe did during Victorian era). I still believe that center of actual progress remains in the Old World - but this situation can change very soon. But after then we shouldn't believe, we would copy new technologies back from China as the China can guard its know-how way better, than democratic Western countries ever did.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
unreal1
Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages
Yes it does. Rare earths have many uses - including electronics, automobiles, cell phones, etc. etc. etc. http://geology.co...lements/ - are you advocating getting rid of computers, cell phones, cars (gas ones) etc. etc?
The point is that you have to look at the whole picture. Yes we use some steel and concrete in constructing turbines. But no toxic waste being produced for the entire life of the turbine once it is up. No smog, arsenic, acid rain, radio active coal ash C02 etc etc. for the life of the plant. Only a fool would think that the pollution from a wind turbine is not a tiny fraction of that of a coal plant.
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
Only a fool would think that the pollution from a wind turbine is not a tiny fraction of that of a coal plant
I'd calculate it first thoroughly, rather than think. The wind turbine is rather diluted and nonreliable source of energy, it needs backup for being comparable with coal plant. The concrete production is energy hungry, it consumes 2% or raw world energy. The copper, neodymium, aluminium and plastic aren't for free anyway. As a comparison may serve the EROI of wind plants but these numbers usually don't contain the energy expenses for wind plants energy distribution and backup, being ideological rather than factual.
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
Wind farm output declines markedly in use after 10-15 years: For onshore wind, the monthly 'load factor' of turbines – a measure of how much electricity they generate as a percentage of how much they could produce if on at full power all the time - dropped from a high of 24 per cent in the first year after construction, to just 11 per cent after 15 years. For offshore wind –examined only in Denmark where it has been used for longer - it declined even more dramatically from over 40 per cent at the start, to just 15 per cent after ten years.

We can just ask, why the country with highest share of "cheap" wind energy has highest prices of electricity in its grid. Apparently something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark....
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2017
mackita
Many elements necessary for "renewable energetics" are about to deplete way sooner than fossil fuel reserves
No they are not. We can build wind turbines and solar panels without rare earths - http://www.aweabl...t-exist/

The level of misinformation being pushed by you and unreal1 is staggering.
mackita
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2017
While they can be difficult to mine, rare is a misnomer: they exist in abundance throughout the earth's crust.
This is also misinformation: the mining of diluted elements can get easily more energy demanding, than the energy savings from their utilization. No matter of their reserves in absolute numbers - typical example is the uranium mining from marine water. We (Japanese) still don't utilize it, because the uranium produced will not pay off the energy produced with it.

We used to say "Shut up and calculate!" as it is one of the famous quotes in Quantum Mechanics. But we should actually use it in "renewable" energetics even more. But such a calculations are still generally missing there.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2017
mackita - your wind turbine study done in Edinburgh has been debunked over and over. Wind turbines degrade at about .15% per year. Total degradation of about 6% over the life of the turbine. http://onlinelibr...for+SGT+
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
Sorry, but we are finding ways round the rare earth metals.

The ones we use now will be recycled, not consumed like fossil fuels.

We used to say "Wake up and see reality".
mackita
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
The levels of wind plant degradations are generally higher - between 25 - 30% (1, 2, 3). Could you explain why Denmark and Germany have most expensive electricity from all EU? I can (and these countries threat the grids in neighboring countries - their expenses aren't considered at all due to dictate of energetic politics of EU). My country is obliged by EU rules to serve as a transit and load balancer of "renewable" electricity from Germany no matter of its cost.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2017
While some folk whine about renewable costs, Mexico just signed a contract for PV power at 1.7 cents/kWh.

The last price for power projected from Vogtle is 15 cents/kWh.

Which one do you want to buy?
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
Mexico just signed a contract for PV power at 1.7 cents/kWh.
This is production cost or retail prices? The wind plant electricity is valued quite low at the electricity markets, being unreliable and occasional reason of grid blackouts. Which one would you want to buy?
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2017
Those are wholesale prices.

I already did buy. I have a PV system which powers the house and two electric vehicles, a VW e-Golf and a Tesla Model S.

Are you still getting tuneups, oil changes and emissions checks?

Don't look for us at the pump filling up with Arab gasoline.
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Those are wholesale prices
Well, I expected that. When something gets cheap, it's subsidized or it has low value at the market (usually the both, because the main purpose of subsidization is to compensate the low quality). While I can appreciate the replacement of unsustainable oil sources, I would like to ensure first, that these replacements don't increase the oil demand on background. After twenty years of "renewable movement" and carbon tax politics we can still cannot see tangible results in the global fossil share usage, not to say on end-use electricity prices. My interpretation therefore is, these replacements don't represent any net savings of fossil fuels, they only represent a new entrepreneurship opportunity for people, who are pushing them at market.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
Oops, all my stuff got blown away, so I will start again.

You seem to be ill-informed. I suggest you keep up with the field by reading professional publications in that field. As a former Senior Engineer in Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric, I keep up with all that.

You can start with https://www.utilitydive.com and go through their publications to get a professional look at the situations and technologies.
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Thank you for link. There also exist tons of webs and library books about Bible and religions - but it doesn't make them more relevant for reality. My warning light is, only very few macroeconomical analysis about actual economical feasibility of "renewable" sources exist. These few ones which actually exist are negative though - but the people responsible simply don't want to listen.

In contemporary society money are attracting money, so that once we invent a sufficiently good reason for their spending (no matter if it's LHC, GMO, NIF or ITER), then you can always find many people willing to connect their personal carrier with such a project. The limited life-span of people may represent main obstacle of actual progress there. One will need only twenty years for rising of children, so that no one of them cares, if these projects will be actually feasible from more global and atemporal perspective.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
"There also exist tons of webs and library books about Bible and religions - but it doesn't make them more relevant for reality."

Please stop equating science with superstition!! Science is based on facts, not wishes, fantasies or "beliefs".

The link I sent is one of reality, not what we want it to be. It is a record of progress as well as future planning. It is a report on operations, and on the politics which affect rational development.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2017
Science is based on facts, not wishes, fantasies or "beliefs"
It should be - but I also know about forty years of string theory research and/or thirty proposed dark matter particles, which actually never existed. What I'm lamenting here is just the absence of facts and serious/complete calculations in anthropogenic global warming and renewable movement. So that my problem is exactly this yours one. I cannot solve all problems of human civilization on this very forum - so for now we can just agree, that we don't agree. This thread is yours for now.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
" This thread is yours for now."

No, it belongs to everybody, and no sneaking out. I gave you a source of facts - reality - and you back away pretending to have equally-rational facts without subjecting them to scrutiny or counter argument.

Facts are, renewables are the most economic and rational choice today, not just in the future. We have two electric cars which are fueled by sunshine.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
. As a former Senior Engineer in Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric, I keep up with all that
Here we go. George kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath was never an engr of anything, let alone a senior engr for PG&E.

How do we know? Well 1) he never earned an undergrad degree, having crapped out of 3 universities... 2) he bought an honorary MS instead of earning a real one... and 3) PG&E doesnt hire non-PEs for senior level positions.
What nobody here really gives a shit about is the tedious personal dispute between gkam and TGOO
Just doin my job. Honest posters also resent people like yourself who are willing to tolerate and encourage professional imposters like george just because theyre on your side of an argument.

Especially sleezy.

Many people here have spent considerable time and effort debunking this fraud besides me. You disrespect them as well.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2017
Will somebody please get "otto" out of here? He has some kind of fixation on me.

Do we have a moderator? I am not the topic here.

We are discussing Musk and batteries. Since we just got a Tesla Model S and put money down an a PowerWall II battery system, and since we already have a PV system and another EV, my experience and education are both significant and timely additions to the discussion.

Let's keep personal nastiness out of it.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
snoose, that guy got so emotional in that referenced post it seemed to indicate other, bigger problems. We will always have those who have other opinions, and I can find some on my side with similar emotional reactions.

The important thing is to remember the science and reality, not just opinion.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2017
mackita
Could you explain why Denmark and Germany have most expensive electricity from all EU?
Yes - because of taxes. The actual cost of wind power is beating the pants off fossil fuels. https://motherboa...-denmark
Keep up with the times mackita - your information is outdated. Ref. from - https://www.cbsne...-energy/
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2017
ya Denninger is a bit of a nut but he sees things from a business mans viewpoint and sees the criminality around you. . he also has a very rational mindset when it comes to things that can be calculated . Nobody is perfect.
unrealone1
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Each 8 mwh Winturbine = 6,000 tonnes of steel and concrete
2 coal power stations = 4,000 mwh
Takes 500 *8mwh Windturbines to replace 2* 2,000 mwh coal power stations
Total of 3,000,000 tonnes of steel and concrete to replace 2 coal power stations.
Every 20 years the 500 windturbines have to be replaced decommissioned recycled.
But winturbines only run at about 38% usage, so do we need 1000 turbines to replace 2 coal plants?
That would be 6,000,000 tonnes of steel and concrete, how much CO2 would that create?
unrealone1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2017
Several thousand wind turbines in Germany are expected to be phased out in the next decade because their state subsidies expire. "If electricity prices do not rise over the next decade, only a few plants will hold their own in the market," according to Berlin-based Energy Brainpool.
http://www.kn-onl...em-Abbau
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2017
"Each 8 mwh Winturbine = 6,000 tonnes of steel and concrete
2 coal power stations = 4,000 mwh"

First of all, you do not use the correct units. How can we believe the other parts of your post?
Bart_A
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
gkam, you make statements that are completely false, too. How can we believe the other parts you post.

You claim just above that "Facts are, renewables are the most economic...choice today."

Then why do Tesla's and just about the other renewable products have to be so heavily subsidized? You are obviously not a rational person.
unrealone1
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
http://beta.latim...ory.html
unrealone1
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
Each 8 mw/h Wind turbine = 6,000 tonnes of steel and concrete
How many Wind turbines will it take to totally power the USA
and how much CO2 will be produced during the mining, manufacturing, and recycling after 20 years?

1# What are the Cradle to Grave CO2 levels for the total number of Turbines to power the USA?
How can the Greens talk Green when you look at this?

In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
http://www.dailym...ale.html
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2017
Then why do Tesla's and just about the other renewable products have to be so heavily subsidized?

Erm...you do realize that renewables get only a fraction of what fossil/nuclear get in subsidies? (I.e. the old power sources are - even after more than a century - not economically viable on their own) ..Depending on source the fossil/nuclear outstrip renewables in terms of subsidies received by 4:1 to a staggering 10:1
https://www.ft.co...cd3b86fc
https://cleantech...bsidies/

So yeah...renewables would LOVE nothing better than if we'd cut all subsidies to everything. They'd wipe the floor with fossil fuels - cost-wise - by an even bigger margin than they already do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2017
I am not the topic here... Since we just got a Tesla Model S and put money down an a PowerWall II battery system, and since we already have a PV system and another EV
Ahahaaa
my experience and education are both significant and timely additions to the discussion
Anybody want to check the DMV again to see if 'george' bought a tesla? His 'education' lies have already been exposed.

But that's why george is here - to drop outrageous lies and watch while people waste their time debunking them.

It's what psychopaths do.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
Nothing competes with Natural Gas 24/7, 2000 mw constant power..
Where is this battery that will power 2000 mw for 12 hours, when there is no wind or sun?
Include the "Battery" in the"Renewables" total cost.
"Renewables" Wind, need to be replaced every 20 years.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2017
Include the "Battery" in the"Renewables" total cost.

Gladly...if you include the cost due to climate change (which include wars, population movements...and eventually relocating all coastal cities).

I'm thinking renewables will come out a tiiiiny bit cheaper.
tekram
5 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2017
.. when there is no wind or sun?
..
When has the world gone without wind or sun? Natural gas is just a large biochemical storage of the sun's energy. There is no reason why we can't make chemical batteries as the predominate form of storage of our sun's energy.
tekram
5 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2017
Several thousand wind turbines in Germany are expected to be phased out in the next decade because their state subsidies expire..
That is simply because of the terms of the contract when they were guaranteed fixed feed-in rates for a period of 20 years. Now that these early deals are approaching the end, and the feed-in tariffs expire, it is unlikely that the same economics will continue.
Nobody ever said all electricity rates will remain constant and wind farms will last forever without maintenance.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2017
tekram, unreal is apparently unaware there are already two signed contracts for wind plus storage and PV plus storage, 24-hour power at between three and four cents/kWh!!

gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2017
I did not expect progress to be that fast, but now there is no real future for fossil fuel as it was used in the 17th-20th centuries. Petroleum is better used as a feedstock, not burned, which is the lowest value use of it. Coal is essentially gone as a fuel.

Battery technology has already proven itself to be practical, and the development of them has just started. It can be a different and better world ahead if we can survive our politics.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2017
unreal1
Renewables" Wind, need to be replaced every 20 years


So do gas turbines - and we still see them as a part of the energy mix.

One final difference is that a gas turbine has more like a 20 year life time,
from - http://www.jasonm...-plants/

Cheapest wind is now coming in below 2 cents Kwh - fossil fuels cant touch that one - without even mentioning the externalities such as climate change, and pollution.
https://www.green....RCShkUE
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2017
unreal1
That would be 6,000,000 tonnes of steel and concrete, how much CO2 would that create?
A lot less than burning millions of tons of coal. You also forgot to mention the steel/concrete/ consumed and C02 produced in building the coal plant, building the rail lines across country to ship the coal, mining the coal, actually shipping the coal, etc. etc. etc.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017

ONE million Wind turbines(1.5mw) to replace Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear?
http://www.ricket...ce-coal/
Coal usage USA.
2,016,456,000 megawatt hours / 3,942 megawatt hours = 511,531 wind
turbines.
About 500,000 wind turbines (1.5 Mw) to replace only coal in 2007.
Plus 250,000 to replace Natural Gas.
Total steel and concrete and batteries?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2017
unrealone - first off you need to learn the basics of the subject you are trying to debate. This is a statement from your blog link
in 2007 coal was responsible for generating 2,016,456 gigawatts of power
OK - who ever wrote that blog doesn't know the basic units involved. It should have read gigawatt hours of power. Your blogg asserts that the U.S. would need approximately 3 - 1.5 MW turbines per person - to generate 48% of their electricity demand. That is the stupidest assertion you could imagine. A 1.5 MW turbine will power around 300 homes. https://www.wind-...tput.php FFS - learn some math....
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.
https://www.busin...amp;IR=T
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
@unrealone1: There is additional problem, that normal wind plant work only to 10-20% of their nominal capacity and their energy needs backup over summer. The off-shore wind plants in Denmark lose 20-30% of their nominal capacity each year (1, 2, 3). So in reality we would need to multiply this number by factor 10 - 20 and to consider the cost of backup/energy storage solutions. How much fossil fuels and raw sources this solution would require at the end?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
In 2016, natural gas was the largest energy source for the 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity generated in the United States.
https://www.eia.g...d_states
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Whereas wind plants account to less than 2% of this volume. The problem here is, most of natural gas in USA comes from shale fracking. The life-time of shale well is even shorter, than this one of wind/solar plant. A typical shale well produces almost half of the ultimate recovery during the first five to six years of well lifetime.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
unreal1 - you linked to a blog that was posting absolute nonsense. They did not even know the difference between a giga watt, and a giga watt hour. They made an absurd assertion. They said that the u.s. would need 1.3 billion wind turbines. The population of the u.s. is around 330 million people. Your numbers are stupid. So you do not know the subject you are commenting on - yet you continue to try to sound important - knocking the cheapest source of electricity we have.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation.
4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.
If the Greens would publish "official data" how many Wind turbines it would it take to replace all fossil fuels with turbines and explanation of the"units" there would be a lot less miss information out there.
Is there an official Wind turbine data set out there with the energy "units" explained?
I think that's the problem, don't shoot the messenger.
https://www.busin...amp;IR=T
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
They said that the u.s. would need 1.3 billion wind turbines. The population of the u.s. is around 330 million people
Well lessee here

"US energy consumption rate per capita = 12,986.74 kWh (2014)"

"The widely used GE 1.5-megawatt model, for example, consists of 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet." [That big? Really??]

"For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year..."

-So... 13MWh/yr per capita means that 26 average-sized turbines are needed per caspita x 330M people = 8 580 000 000 turbines. [Let's not forget, mislesding household figures do not include total energy consumed in an industrial society]

Sounds like that website is being conservative.

Feel free to check my maths as I am not very good at them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
Just to be clearer

13MWh/yr per capita means that 26 average-sized turbines are needed per capita x 330M people = 8,580,000,000 turbines.

-That's 8.6 BILLION turbines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption)
Electricity is only a small percentage of total energy produced and consumed. For some reason this percentage number is hard to find.
mackita
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
They said that the u.s. would need 1.3 billion wind turbines. The population of the u.s. is around 330 million people. Your numbers are stupid
I said, you would need at least 10 times more. IMO #Otto brought quite relevant numbers 8.6 billion turbines, i.e. 26 average-sized turbines per capita, the production of which would consume way more energy than one third or average household. These are just the global numbers which I talked about above - one doesn't need to be a lone genius for to recognize, something is smelling in the "renewable" thing.
mackita
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
For some reason this percentage number is hard to find.
The energy flow diagrams like this one could illuminate the subject more. The electricity participates roughly by 30% on total energy flux and more than two thirds of it get rejected.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Hey zepher/Alizee - what did you think of Rossi's latest crapfest?
http://ecatworld....dr-mike/

-Apparently no way of knowing if he was using HF to heat the thing.

What an abortion.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
The question simply is: could your average three members family afford the construction of forest 3x26=78 wind turbines three times during your life-time instead of just plain paying for electricity and gasoline for your car as before? And if yes, could you pay the estate, where this forest should be located and its storage/backup battery? If not, then you're probably not enthusiastic enough for the Al Gore/Elon Musks projects and you should reconsider your life-time priorities..
what did you think of Rossi's latest crapfest
Isn't it off topic in this thread?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
The topic is energy and maverick entrepreneurs. Rossi is the one with the wig to cover medical issues on the outside of his head.

I do hope he gets better.

Hey - since when has the 'topic' ever kept you from bringing up dense aether rotz or even LENR? God what's that word... supercilious? Naw that's not it. Damn.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Whole the cold fusion thing has apparent progress: we are still unsure about its actual thermal yield as before - but now we could see, that it can be controlled easily with electricity. But for full realizing its actual importance we should realize first the hopelessness of "renewable" approach. This is where the actual responsibility for our future begins.

For those who fear of nuclear things, this guy claims, it should be possible to drain 100 kW from one square meter of graphene... This is where the actual progress begins.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
"we should realize first the hopelessness of "renewable" approach"

Come see my house and car and power "bill".
mackita
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
How much you and your government did invest into your "savings"? The total cost of ownership is what counts here.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
@Zeph
How much you and your government did invest into your "savings"? The total cost of ownership is what counts here.
depends

currently: you can salvage PV panels as well as other equipment limiting or even eliminating your costs (excepting the cost of time or transportation)

this limits your cost to what you do not have, such as inverters, wiring, controllers, etc

Batteries can also be salvaged from the government or other agencies (commercial and private)
But for full realizing its actual importance we should realize first the hopelessness of "renewable" approach
?!?! - if everyone would just pour their money into you, you could change the world, right?

ROTFLMFAO

maybe you can develop an aether generator that controls the CF?
better yet, lets all just invest in one of your perpetual motion machines you've hawked here!

sounds legit!

[do I really need to point out the intentional derision?]

gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
"The total cost of ownership is what counts here."

Really? Then you must crank the fossil fuel subsidies into your use of Arab Gasoline.

"Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year! A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels"

https://www.thegu...per-year

BTW, that is $5,000,000,000,000!!!
mackita
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
DOE is also smelling something: Award $99 Million for Energy Frontier Research Centers. In their proposal a new era for energy science was posed in five "grand challenges":

* How do we control material processes AT THE LEVEL OF ELECTRONS?
* How do we design and perfect ATOM AND ENERGY EFFICIENT synthesis of revolutionary new forms of matter with tailored properties?
* How do remarkable properties of matter emerge from complex correlations of the atomic or electronic constituents and how can we control these properties?
* How can we master energy and INFORMATION ON THE NANOSCALE to create new technologies with capabilities rivaling those of living things?
* How do we characterize and control matter away – especially VERY FAR AWAY FROM (thermodynamical) EQUILLIBRIUM?
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
@Gkam: of course, the sooner we will end with fossil fuels, the better - there's no question about it. After all, we'll still need more than one third of oil for plastic industry and the demand is steadily growing...

But are the current renewables really able to decrease the fossil fuel consumption? Don't they just redirect their consumption into another areas of industry where it evades the attention of public (utility, raw source mining)? You're of course fossil fuels hater - but do you really hate them enough? This is the question here.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
mac, my disdain for them comes from my earning a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, and working in industries as well as being a utility engineer myself.

Yes, we can do it, and are proceeding much faster than I imagined. The consumption of materials for renewables does not include the fuel, which is the biggest cost of power and the biggest source of waste. And the materials of construction can be recycled over and over again.

"Can we?" is the wrong question, . . we are already doing it.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
For explanation of DOE point: all contemporary energy production processes are based on thermodynamically reversible processes, which just dissipate the energy from one form into another one, like the Carnot or Diesel cycle. But in Nature many exceptions from naive thermodynamics exist: here I mean negentropic phenomena like the overcooling, overheating, bubbles and crystals formation, oversaturation of ferromagnets (we can hear it like the Barkhausen noise).. These phenomena are typical for materials and systems which are in dimensional non-equilibrium (planar or striped materials with electrons geometrically frustrated in unnatural positions). How the thermodynamic and energy conservation laws would work under these situations? Sniff, sniff...
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
I rely on Einstein's first paper, on work functions and the photoelectric effect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Whole the cold fusion thing has apparent progress: we are still unsure about its actual thermal yield as before - but now we could see, that it can be controlled easily with electricity
No, Rossi's latest spectacle only proved that he could make a black box (white in this case) without us having any idea of whats going in inside of it. He also had as year to prove to IH that he had something that worked.

I suspect the same sort of pathology as this psychopath:
mac, my disdain for them comes from my earning a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, and working in industries as well as being a utility engineer myself
-who keeps on lying about his background despite the fact that everyone here knows he's a sick fraud.

Rossi had the chance to produce a glowing tube right there on the table for everyone to see, with a small power input and a large output.

The fact that he didn't do so leads one to suspect that he is enjoying the deception.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
I suspect the same sort of pathology as this psychopath
Maybe, but I also see the same sort of experiments, like the Me356 and another researchers, who attempted to enhance cold fusion with high frequency electric discharge. When we take a look at the bee hive and we'll see some bee walking in circles, we can think easily, that this bee is just psycho. Until we will see another bee doing it too and another one somewhere else - this is how reality emerges from random events before our eyes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
There are lots of psychopaths in this world. It's good to have one here to fiddle with and observe their tail-chasing.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Providing that the cold fusion may run within metal lattices, which are capable to dissolve, concentrate and ionize the hydrogen, the usage of electric discharge is the logical step. The nickel is known to absorb some hydrogen (nickel-hydride batteries are about it). But it doesn't dissolve too much hydrogen - especially not at high temperatures, where the fusion runs with sufficient speed. The repeated forceful injecting of hydrogen ions (i.e. proton implantation) beneath the surface of nickel with electric discharge seems to be the logical solution of this technical problem. Of course, until you don't know about these subtleties, then the Rossi experiments may look crazy. After all, every sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic, as Asimov noted.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
" When we take a look at the bee hive and we'll see some bee walking in circles, we can think easily, that this bee is just psycho"

Well,.. no. Bees doing the circle dance are telling the other bees where the pollen is, directions and distance.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Why the hydrogen fusion could run easier within metal lattice than just inside the bare plasma? It's sorta ball mill effect: if we want to crush grains into a flour, we can shake them well inside the closed vessel. But if we add few inert but heavy balls to the grains, then the milling will suddenly go way way faster. Not to say, that metals used in cold fusion research (like the palladium, nickel or zirconium) have a tendency to dissolve and concentrate hydrogen within their lattice. It's concentration may therefore reach much higher levels than inside the ITER or NIF plasma.
Bees doing the circle dance are telling the other bees where the pollen is
Yes, but you cannot recognize it by single observation of lone bee. This is why the replication of experiments (no matter how futile or crazy they may look at the first sight) gets so important.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
" This is why the replication of experiments (no matter how futile or crazy they may look at the first sight) gets so important."

Well, we all agree with that.

But this is not about cold fusion.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
The replication (and rewarding it despite negative results) is about all anomalous effects, the research of which has been abandoned prematurely in the past - not just about cold fusion. Once we don't recognize the correct combination of conditions of complex phenomena leading to success, then the repeating of experiments is the only way how to advance in their progress. Of course the incentivization of void replications can also bring the risk, that the researchers will find easy salary in even more trivial research, than before. We should also prioritize such a research.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
Otto
Feel free to check my maths as I am not very good at them
Put bluntly - your math is rubbish. You assert the need for
That's 8.6 BILLION turbines
You and unreal and mackita have no idea what you are talking about. I already explained. A 1.5 Mw turbine will run approx 300 U.S. homes - https://www.wind-...tput.php
Want to do the math. One u.s. home uses approx -12,000 Kwh per year. - http://shrinkthat...sumption

A wind turbine that is 1.5 Mw (that is 1,500,000 watts, or 1,500 Kw). Would produce 1,500 X 8,760 (hours in a year) = 13,140,000 Kwh per year if it was running 100% of the time. Lets be conservative - and say it runs 25% of the time. = 3,285,000 Kwh per year. Divide that by 12,000 (avg annual Kwh of a u.s. home) and you see exactly as the article I referenced shows you - One 1.5 Mw turbine - will run approx 300 u.s. homes. So it is STUPID to suggest we would need BILLIONS of turbines.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Here is another way to come at it - in 2015 the U.S. electricity sales were 3.7 trillion Kwh. https://www.eia.g...id=26672
Lets round that to 4 trillion = 4,000,000,000,000 Kwh Again - divide that by 8,760 hours in a year - and you get 456,621,000 Kw. Times by 4 - to give you a 25% capacity factor =1,824,000,000 Kw or 1,824,000 Mwh - requiring about 1,216,000 turbines. One million two hundred sixteen thousand turbines.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
One 1.5 Mw turbine - will run approx 300 u.s. homes
In the US typical household power consumption is about 11,7 MWh per year. And the residential electricity represents just some 4% of total energy consumption.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
And the residential electricity represents just some 4% of total energy consumption.
But close to 50% of electricity consumption - so it is a pretty significant chunk of energy. As electric cars and trucks replace i.c.e's - that percentage will just keep increasing. Problem with so many people like you mackita - is you think the future is going to be the same as the past. That has never been true - you are just stuck in the past.
unrealone1
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
3,903 Billion Kilowatt hours, USA produced in 2014
https://www.eia.g...ctricity
How to convert to mw an hour?

Primary energy use in the United States was 25,155 TWh or about 81,800 kWh per person in 2009.
https://en.wikipe...d_States
unrealone1
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
In the future all cars and trucks and trains will be electric.?
That's a Massive electricity spike and manufacturing spike.
Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
transportation represented 27% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2015
https://www.epa.g...missions
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
You and unreal and mackita have no idea what you are talking about. I already explained. A 1.5 Mw turbine will run approx 300 U.S. homes - https://www.wind-...tput.php
- and running HOMES is a small part of the total energy this culture PRODUCES and CONSUMES.

Why don't you know and understand this??
But close to 50% of electricity consumption
-An what part of total energy consumption is in the form of electricity?

And how much electricity does it take to run an aluminum smelting plant, just one example?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
I'll tell you how much

"According to Alcoa, the world's largest producer of aluminium, the best smelters use about 13 kilowatt hours (46.8 megajoules) of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium; the worldwide average is closer to 15 kWh/kg (54 MJ/kg)."

Pretty sick eh?

The US produced 335,000 metric TONS of aluminum last year.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
and running HOMES is a small part of the total energy this culture PRODUCES and CONSUMES.
Which is why I showed you a second analysis - that showed you that total electricity consumption of 4 trillion Kwh - which gave you a total turbine # of around 1.2 million. Now let's take makitas # of 4% of the total energy consumption - and you would come up with around 30 million turbines for total energy. That means every plane, train, truck, car etc. Not BILLIONS as per your stupid assertion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
You're not analysing the numbers i presented, in particular

"For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year..."

-which also does not include wind variability, downtime for maintenance.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
"For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year..."

I think whoever said this means "Load Factor" and "kWh" and "Megawatt-hour".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
"For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year..."

I think whoever said this means "Load Factor" and "kWh" and "Megawatt-hour".
You also think that people here believe you are an engineer with an MS just because you say so, in spite of all the evidence you yourself have provided that you are a lying cheating psychopath.

So we can assume this latest factoid is meant to get people to waste their time disproving it.

George kamburoff lied himself into 14-15b jobs over the course of his career, again deduced from what he himself has posted here. Jobs which he lost in short order most likely because supervisors quickly found out he couldnt do them.

To normal people these losses would be an embarrassment and a source of shame. But to the psychopath they are all victories. They reflect an ability to successfully deceive and swindle, the only thing a psychopath gets enjoyment from.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
"Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath is that he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind. He does bizarre and self-destructive things because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at all. What to others would be a disaster is to him merely a fleeting inconvenience."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
unrealone - first off you need to learn the basics of the subject you are trying to debate. This is a statement from your blog link
Ahaahaaaa and until you were faced with your own ignorance you actually thought that powering households was the sum total of all energy consumed hehe

Come on GO - dispute this

"For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year..."

-with some real facts rather than innuendo for a change.

And I suggest not uprating liars and cheats just because theyre on your side. Its tacky.

And it does reveal a little too much about your own personality.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2017
Wind turbines are rated in Megawatts. They are not rated by efficiency, but output. They produce, over time, Megawatt-hours, which are metered and charged.

The percent of their time in equivalent full load is called Load Factor.

A 1.5 Megawatt wind turbine with your alleged "33% efficiency" actually produces the equivalent of 100% power for 33% of the time, not a third of the power all the time.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Yes well most people have feelings to hurt little psychopath.

"It has often been noted that psychopaths have a distinct advantage over human beings with conscience and feelings because the psychopath does not have conscience and feelings."

-Something I am sure you would hole-heartedly agree with.

No, in order for your post to be taken seriously you have to back it up with refs from real scientists and engineers.

For instance, a real engineer with a real education and real experience used the term 'efficiency factor'. Youre a sick little man who only pretends to have these credentials.

So what do you think we are going to believe? Really now.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
Hmmmm, . . your fascination with me is interesting, . . perhaps we have here a version of this:

http://nymag.com/...al.html?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Power out put of wind farms in Australia, how do you balance this stuff?
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
You do it in the aggregate, which is the great advantage of large grids. Lots of Load Following plants.

Soon, they will use PV, wind, and battery storage. It has already sold for between three and four cents/kWh, as opposed to the fifteen cents projected for Vogtle.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Hmmmm, . . your fascination with me is interesting, . . perhaps we have here a version of this:

http://nymag.com/...al.html?
I am both fascinated and revolted by psychopaths. What makes you think youre unique?

I am glad that one is here for learning and teaching. People need to know what you are, what you say, what you do, and why you do it.

Im curious; would you trust a person like yourself, for instance if he said he had an incredible investment opportunity, that he knew this because he claimed to have experience and degrees which you suspected were bogus, but he insisted he knew what he was doing?

Would you give him money despite your doubts?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
Hmmmm, . . your fascination with me is interesting
You do enjoy getting a rise out of people dont you? What does 'enjoyment' feel like to someone without emotion?

I really want to know.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2017
otto
Ahaahaaaa and until you were faced with your own ignorance you actually thought that powering households was the sum total of all energy consumed hehe
No I did not - which is why I devoted a whole comment to the total electricity being generated - as 3.7 trillion Kwh - which I rounded up to 4 trillion Kwh. I have been very clear that I understand that electricity generation is not the total power of a nation. However - I also showed you that your assertion of BILLIONS of turbines is absurd. Even if you take the total power consumption (I used makita's 4% figure) - you are still only looking at 30 million or so turbines. Now let us look at your ignorance of the topic. You keep quoting this -
For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year...
gkam keeps trying to school you in how this quote shows a basic misunderstanding of the units involved - cont.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2017
The statement you keep quoting is nonsense. If you had a basic understanding of electricity you would know that. The output of a turbine over time is measured in Mwh. If a 1,5 Mwh turbine was running at full output for 1 year - it would produce 1.5 X 8760 (hours in a year) Mwh which equals 13,140 Mwh. No turbine runs at full output - all the time. This is why we have a load factor. gkam is correct that the more common term is load factor - http://powersecto...plf.html With wind turbines - the articles also often talk about capacity factor (same thing as load factor). I understand your term efficiency factor - but so what. YOU don't know the basics of the subject you are screaming about.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
The short form is, it worked.

Get over it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
I also showed you that your assertion of BILLIONS of turbines is absurd
It wasn't my assertion. It was the result of combining the assertions of experts.
gkam keeps trying to school you in how this quote shows a basic misunderstanding of the units involved
Ha No, again you are trying to school the PhD who wrote the article the quote came from.
https://sciencing...667.html

- You didn't even Google the quote did you? Here let me post the paragraph for you:
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
"Efficiency Rating
Modern wind turbines use a variety of designs intended to help them capture wind more efficiently. Efficiency is an important value to know when assessing a wind turbine. In an ideal world, a turbine would convert 100 percent of wind passing through the blades into power. Because of factors such as friction, these machines only have efficiency ratings of between 30 percent and 50 percent of rated power output. Power output is calculated as follows: power = [(air density) times (swept area of blades) times (wind speed cubed)] divided by 2. The area is in meters squared, air density is in kilograms per meters cubed and wind speed is in meters per second."

-Obviously the psychopath doesnt know what he is talking about. But we already knew that didn't we?

So now you've got to tell me why you chose to accept the word of a confirmed liar and fraud without even checking the source.

Really, I'm curious.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2017
So now you've got to tell me why you chose to accept the word of a confirmed liar and fraud without even checking the source
No Ottto - stop changing the subject. Here is the quote I am taking issue with
a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year
That is rubbish. The output of a turbine over time - is measured in Mwh. That quote is rubbish - and shows that who ever wrote it does not even know the basic units of electricity. I also take issue with your claiming the need for billions of turbines. That is also rubbish - and I showed you that with multiple calculations. You are wrong. Most articles I read on the web use the term capacity factor - I think the more technical term is load factor - but that is not the main issue - and just a question of preferred vocabulary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
Still didn't read the article did you? Curiouser and curiouser.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2017
Still didn't read the article did you? Curiouser and curiouser
Yes I did read the article. And I have just gone back and re-read it. And the line I keep quoting to you is rubbish. Anyone who has the most rudimentary understanding of units of electricity - knows that the line I keep quoting back to you - is rubbish. Again - the output of a generator over time is measure in Mwh - mega watt hours. That line is no different than saying - my house used 500 kilowatts of electricity last year. That is rubbish - the wrong units. Also - the fundamental disagreement I have raised here - is that it is total nonsense to talk about needing BILLIONS of wind turbines to power the U.S. That nonsense is off by a factor on 1,000 - and I have shown you the math to support that. It requires middle school level math. Your article does nothing to change that reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Here's a brochure for a 1.5 mw turbine
https://www.googl...teai30nw

-apparently they're commonly rated in mw. No?

One operating at 1/3 efficiency would only have an effective rating of .5mw.

Doesn't matter how you choose to convert that number.
middle school level math
- And you're insulting the acumen of a PhD. I really do hate it when pinheads like you denigrate real professionals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
GO says
Yes I did read the article
And then he says
Again - the output of a generator over time is measure in Mwh - mega watt hours
- But if we look at the article it says

"For example, a turbine with a rated capacity of 1.5 megawatts and efficiency factor of 25 percent would be expected to produce as follows: 365 * 24 * 1.5 * .25 = 3,285 kilowatt hours per year. This calculation assumes wind availability at 24 hours a day all year around. In practical application, this doesn't happen. You can use the NREL wind maps to adjust your time figures for a more accurate location-specific figure."

- So you didn't read the article. You're a liar as well.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
So you didn't read the article. You're a liar as well
I did read the article - and that line you quote is fine. I take issue with the other line that I keep referencing. But putting aside that badly worded line - my bigger question - 'what is your point?'
My point - and this is the point that I take consistently - is that wind is a very viable form of energy generation - that is going to be part of the renewable energy grid that we are starting to transition to. My point is supported by reality. Countries across the world are developing more and more renewable energy - and wind is a major player in that reality that is evolving as we speak. Ideal1 and makita are advocating for coal.
What is your point?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
Yeah. You're a liar.

Hey zephyr here's a nice expose of Rossi's perfidy
https://youtu.be/56JaGtkZV14
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2017
Yeah. You're a liar.
I asked you what your point is - and you have none. Just here to throw around insults at people - and try to talk about things you don't really understand. You look pretty crappy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
My POINT is that your intent was to denigrate a genuine SCIENTIST by accusing him of not understanding something in an article where he goes to the trouble of EXPLAINING it to you.

My POINT is that it's not worth engaging with people like you who have so little respect for genuine SCIENTISTS that you won't even read what they WRITE before trashing them... and then LYING about it.

Youre scum. Is my point. And you don't belong on this site.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
"Youre scum. Is my point. And you don't belong on this site."

MODERATOR: Can you stop this?
unrealone1
not rated yet Nov 30, 2017
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2017
@greenos, every time I've tried to engage @GOO he's done exactly what he is trying to do to you here. I see no point in even addressing this troll and haven't in years. I suggest you not waste your time.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
When do we get the PowerWall II?

I have reservations for two units plus inverter and controls for the PV, house, and our EV loads.
We live in earthquake country, and I want to be prepared.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
greenos, every time I've tried to engage @GOO he's done exactly what he is trying to do to you here. I see no point in even addressing this troll and haven't in years. I suggest you not waste your time
Uh huh. Every time you've tried to engage @GOO you've been wrong. The common thread here is your inability to admit it when you're wrong.

Tell you what - explain why GO was right to trash a PhD without even reading his article, and I will graciously apologize.

I know - like GO you haven't even read the thread or the article in question before commenting have you?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
Otto
My POINT is.....
I will rephrase the question. Regarding the subject that was being discussed (the merits of wind turbines vs coal plants in the generation of electricity) - what is your point? I think I expressed my points pretty clearly.
Regarding your need to hurl around childish insults - as I expressed to you recently on another thread - you are bully.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
gkam
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
"Will Tesla Die for Lack of Cobalt?"

Not mine.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.