Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!

---

Warb

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

Regards
Paul

I'm late to the conversation so apologies if this has come up before, but seeing the phrase 'nuclear power' was mentioned on this page I thought I'd throw up a link to a physicist who I respect very much to hear what she has to say on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's seems pretty balanced to me. The one point from the vid that sticks in my memory is that nuclear power is not renewable (I know this seem obvious) but the reserves of Uranium ore is much smaller than you would think, which means that a massive ramp-up in traditional reactors would exhaust the reserves much faster than you might imagine (caveat here, 50 years ago we were talking about the limit of reserves of coal, but there seems no end to the bloody stuff on a timescale that removes it from the apocalypse vs she'll be sweet equation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

---

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels. I also suspect that the optimal co-existence would require some compromise to the design of the solar installation, such as mounting the panels slightly higher than "minimal cost", and probably with bigger spacing between rows than "required for best PV output". An approach that included fencing (and water supply) to allow sheep movement without human intervention would be ideal, AKA cell grazing whereby each area is rested and the animals are moved (or in fact move themselves when a gate is left opened) to the next cell where the vegetation has regrown. Laneways would be required to allow the mobs of sheep to be moved to the yards for treatment or loading on to trucks. My doubt here is whether the energy producers are going to want to spend the extra money to set such a system up, as their main concern is greatest PV output per unit area - sheep are rarely a high return proposal which is why the solar farm is able to acquire the land at all!

Dogs are certainly the best way to muster sheep, but without the ability to see what the dog is doing and "steer" it, you need a really good group of dogs!

If such a project was approached wholistically, perhaps including a mob or two of goats in the rotation for weed control, I have no doubt it could be a great success, but not so much if the intention is simply "more watts", or if sheep are just thrown into a lowest common denominator solar farm.

Whilst this is indeed the finer details, it is the finer details rather than the pipe dreams that actually decide success or failure or a project (see "Snowy 2.0"!!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

I'm late to the conversation so apologies if this has come up before, but seeing the phrase 'nuclear power' was mentioned on this page I thought I'd throw up a link to a physicist who I respect very much to hear what she has to say on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's seems pretty balanced to me. The one point from the vid that sticks in my memory is that nuclear power is not renewable (I know this seem obvious) but the reserves of Uranium ore is much smaller than you would think, which means that a massive ramp-up in traditional reactors would exhaust the reserves much faster than you might imagine (caveat here, 50 years ago we were talking about the limit of reserves of coal, but there seems no end to the bloody stuff on a timescale that removes it from the apocalypse vs she'll be sweet equation)

---

mic

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up. :)

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up. :)

Regards
Paul

---

yeah nah, can you sum up? :q:U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.

---

Yes, pretty even handed assessing., but she also seems to think that the only lives that matter from a nucular accident are human lives. No mention of the sealife with the Fukushima mess, for example. Nor did she mention the environmental contamination of an accident.

Another problem with nuke reactors is that they become a bigger target for either terrorists or invaders (looking at Ukraine recently). Not only can they wipe out your power source, they can contaminate a pretty big area at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels.

---

I think that that is crucial.

Wind Farms. Lot of wind farms in Tassy and they are placed where the wind blows, often in areas too wet for sheep. It is routine to have cattle under them - both beef and dairy. The cows don't seem to mind.

Solar Farms. I have only seen a couple and both had the panels placed almost at grond level. I can see potential problems, including:

• Low edge is vulnerable to farm machinery and stray stones from mowers,
• Sheep may attempt tp climb them, especially lambs,
• Rams may back up to them to do their business.
• Difficulty in managing weeds close to the panels, etc.

If their height was raised by a foot or two, they would also provide shelter for the sheep.

Quote:

---

Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge

---

You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

The lanes should also facilitate cell grazing with minimal cost.

The better graziers will adapt quickly, the mob will eventually follow their lead.

It has always been so.

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

---

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

yeah nah, can you sum up? :q:U

---

Mic

Yep.. I can narrow it down to 115 pages....!

Actually, very briefly, the governments, both state and federal need to wake up, get off their ars.s and do something before they miss the boat. "Manyana" just doesn't cut it.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

---

I've worked sheep with both Kelpies and Collies, but never in an area where I 100% can't see what is going on. I've never been in a solar farm on foot or bike, but from the outside it looks like you'd not see anything beyond the first row of panels. If that is true, there'd be zero communication between man and dog. Not my idea of fun!

The "lanes" you mention, are you talking about the panels or is there internal fencing? The only solar farm I've been close to (though not inside) looks like one huge paddock. The whole thing becomes far easier if there's internal fencing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

---

Given the comments in an earlier post about power companies (and mines) reneging on land rehabilitation agreements, I'd expect the farmers to be the ones leasing the land back after selling it to the power companies!!

I was going to suggest goats rather than sheep to keep foliage and weeds down on solar farms, but (a) I've seen how high they can jump - you'd find them on top of the solar panels, and (b) any even slightly exposed wires would be fair game, possibly leading to LEGs (Light Emitting Goats).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

I was going to suggest goats rather than sheep to keep foliage and weeds down on solar farms, but (a) I've seen how high they can jump - you'd find them on top of the solar panels, and (b) any even slightly exposed wires would be fair game, possibly leading to LEGs (Light Emitting Goats).

---

Jumping, yes absolutely.

I never had any problems with goats chewing wires, possibly due to our extensive usage of electric fences - they learnt very young to keep away from the fences! Interestingly, I would see them intensely studying the electric fences from time to time, getting very close but not touching the wires. My conclusion was that they could sense whether the fences were still "live", because why else would they do it? I've never noticed sheep or cattle do the same thing.... Not related to green power, but training pigs to live with electric fences was interesting, because when they got zapped they would jump forward (into the fence) rather than backwards and away from it like everything else. We had to build training paddocks with very solid fences and electric offsets, such that the pigs would bounce off the main fence after getting zapped by the offset and jumping forward! They learnt very quickly, however! Pigs are smart....

Sorry to report that some cattle can definitely sense the electric field around a fence that is live. When we first built about 20 years ago we had cattle on the property and put up electric fence tape just around the house to keep them out. One cow in particular would wander up to the fence, stop to check it out, and if it wasn't turned on at the energiser proceed to walk straight through the tape like it wasn't there. I never saw her get a belt from the fence - it it was on, she always backed off. Somewhere on disc I have a photo of a cow peering through one of bedroom windows of the newly-built house. As you're probably aware, most cattle fancy themselves as electricians, plumbers, etc.... :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

Sorry to report that some cattle can definitely sense the electric field around a fence that is live. When we first built about 20 years ago we had cattle on the property and put up electric fence tape just around the house to keep them out. One cow in particular would wander up to the fence, stop to check it out, and if it wasn't turned on at the energiser proceed to walk straight through the tape like it wasn't there. I never saw her get a belt from the fence - it it was on, she always backed off. Somewhere on disc I have a photo of a cow peering through one of bedroom windows of the newly-built house. As you're probably aware, most cattle fancy themselves as electricians, plumbers, etc.... :D.

---

There have been horses at our pony club over the years that seemed to know if it was on, came to the conclusion they could hear the faint tick through the wire after they seemed even more careful of it if there was a slight arc from a short nearby. Most seemed to get one boot and then respect the tape.

Had a yearling steer come up to a new electric wire, looked at it, sniffed it and then he went and picked a fight with one of his brothers.

A real head to head shoving match. He slowly maneuvered his brother around and pushed him into the wire tail first. His brother reacted violently.

I don't know if he knew that the wire was live or he was just testing it but you would swear that he just stood back and laughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

The "lanes" you mention, are you talking about the panels or is there internal fencing? The only solar farm I've been close to (though not inside) looks like one huge paddock. The whole thing becomes far easier if there's internal fencing!

---

I was careful to note that I have only seen two solar farms, so others may be different.

The panels were lined up like soldiers in nice straight lines, about 100 mm from the ground and at an angle of ~55°. The space between the rows of panels formed the lanes.

Viewed front on and all you see is a wall of panels. Viewed side on and you look straight down the lanes and the sheep are both highly visible and corralled. Each lane could be used as a grazing cell.

One of my biggest criticisms of media reporting is the blatant bias in one direction or another and in an attempt to maintain some degree of minimal prejudice myself I have been researching more on the nuclear question and in particular the SMRs (Small Modular Reactors for newcomers to the thread).

In the past the "Nukes" have been towards the top end of the scale in that once you committed to such a project there was an economy of scale. An individual unit may have been 800MW or larger, which would make even the smaller machines bigger than anything we have in Australia. The SMR design is usually between 30MW and 300MW.

As I have pointed out before, the SMR so casually touted by some as the saviour and real alternative to fossil fuelled power were not in existence and only at best in design stages. That may not have been entirely correct. I chanced upon this article:

What are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? | IAEA

However, while not overly glossy in it's reporting, it is not unbiased either.

What I was really trying to find out was where there were SMRs already in active service. Contrary to my earlier beliefs, I had read that there were three plants up and running. One each in Russia, China and India.

This is the Russian one:

Akademik Lomonosov - Wikipedia

While the Russian plant is the first SMR, it is marine based. China has the first land based plant:

World’s First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Starts Producing Energy in China (interestingengineering.com)

India and Korea are still "looking" at these projects. Argentina is pouring the concrete for it's plant. There may be another plant in Russia. The Chinese installation is the largest at 125MW.

Canada has also been used as an example of a country adopting SMRs. However, it is more of a "plan" at this stage than actual plant:

Canada's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan (smractionplan.ca)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is important to note the source, who is promoting the concept and whether the idea exists or is a proposal at best or a dream at worst.

Just going back to the first link I made, I took this excerpt, which is probably rather telling seeing as how it comes from the IAEA:

"Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed."

It is also interesting to note that the developmental and approval processes will still be the same as for their larger brethren. There may, in fact, be no savings to be had on a cost/MW basis and they may be more expensive. It may make a small plant affordable in some situations, but then it comes down to whether it is the best way to spend the money for the electricity budget.

Regards
Paul

Edit: A correction. The Chinese reactor is 200MW. I don't know where I got 125MW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

One each in Russia, China and India.

---

Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

---

FF

Indeed.

Russia and China in particular. Just have a look at the Three Gorges hydro station and the amount of people displaced there (1.3m ?). A DA is not so much of an issue there if the powers to be support it. However, I did note that the project received one of the lowest approval rates seen.

Strangely to my mind, it is the approvals and safety issues that seem to have hampered India's development in this direction.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Three countries not particularly well known for their environmental conscientiousness.

---

Or the credibility of their reporting.

This is some more information on the Chinese SMRs installed at Shidao Bay by the CHG company, who may be the third largest electricity producer in China with a capacity of more than Australia in total.

Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

It looks as though initially two SMRs have been installed with eight more to follow, although there is no indication of a time frame. Also contemporaneously, two more conventional large PWR (Pressurised Water Reactors) units of 1500MW each are being built. It may be that the SMRs are a trial to establish how well they can be integrated. My understanding is that CHG are quite open to trialing new technologies and are a large enough company to do this.

The SMRs have only just reached full operational capacity and it has been a journey started back in 2009. It was held up by the implications of the Fukushima debacle for a while.

Regards
Paul

Finally, there has been a successful attempt to create more power in a fusion reaction than was used to generate the reaction:

Nuclear fusion for dummies: The energy breakthrough that could change everything (msn.com)

Unfortunately, the title is a little misleading as all this stuff is a long, long way off. It still has to be economic and it has to be on a much larger scale. One of those times when size matters hugely! :wink:

Regards
Paul

One little piece of information I did take from the link in the previous post is that atomic bombs today are in fact Fusion bombs, commonly referred to as H-Bombs. I had not appreciated that. We are not really exposed to such production here in Millmerran.

Just as an aside, where do you think is the best place to be should a nuclear bomb be exploded in your vicinity? Well, really, anywhere where you can still say "What the f@&k was that?" Actually, you probably need to be many times further away than that as the effect ranges from vaporisation at the detonation site, through blast to long term radiation effect: Hmmm...The moon is starting to sound more attractive than it ever was before.

This is a further aside showing an interactive timeline of every nuclear test conducted:

Map of Every Nuclear-Bomb Explosion in History (businessinsider.com)

Apologies for being the harbinger of doom. I think we are at least alright for the rest of the week.....

:D

Regards
Paul

You'd probably only get up to "What the..." anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

You'd probably only get up to "What the..." anyway.

---

:D

FF

You had just mis-calculated how far away you should have been. :( It is similar to judging how far away lightning occurs. Roughly five seconds between the flash and the sound for every mile. 4.7 seconds if you wish to be more accurate and 4.69 seconds if you are being pedantic. Speed of sound all depends on altitude and temperature too.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

:D FF You had just mis-calculated how far away you should have been. :( It is similar to judging how far away lightning occurs. Roughly five seconds between the flash and the sound for every mile. 4.7 seconds if you wish to be more accurate and 4.69 seconds if you are being pedantic. Speed of sound all depends on altitude and temperature too. Regards Paul

---

But does the shock wave travel at the speed of sound, or the speed of light, or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

But does the shock wave travel at the speed of sound, or the speed of light, or something else?

---

Graeme

Very good question. I have to go and do some welding, so I will leave that one to the super sleuths that I know abound here. However, I am pretty certain it is a lot faster than I can run.

Regards
Paul

PS: I couldn't help myself....Close to the speed of sound and still a lot quicker than my ute! Then the question becomes how far does it travel with devastating consequence?

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms that I invite the thread participants to watch and/or consider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KG Lang

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms ...

---

Either yet more fake news ... or a profound analysis of the competence of political advisors and their employers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

... FenceFurniture wants picture(s) for this post ...

---

Happy to oblige, FF, but I do need some technical advice.

From your experience, should the camera be hand held or on a tripod? And what shutter speed have you found works best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KG Lang

Here is a video from an ex-gov detailing some intel about wind farms that I invite the thread participants to watch and/or consider?

---

KG L

Welcome to the Forums and thank you for subscribing to this thread. I did in fact see that video some while back as it was sent to me by one of my BILs. I was intrigued for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed low key and appeared to come from the ABC, who while far from perfect are not normally the scallywags some other media outlets are. Secondly, I had never heard of wind turbines being powered up by diesel engines.

So... I looked a little further. Smaller wind turbines are simply driven by the wind. End of story. Some of the very large wind turbines do have a small motor to "kick them away," but as soon as momentum has occurred, inertia keeps them rotating. These "starter" motors are usually electric and only operate for a very short time. An analogy would be the starter motor in your car.

If that video appeared on Mythbusters it would go firmly and unequivocally in to the "Busted" category.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

KG L

Welcome to the Forums and thank you for subscribing to this thread. I did in fact see that video some while back as it was sent to me by one of my BILs. I was intrigued for two reasons. Firstly, it seemed low key and appeared to come from the ABC, who while far from perfect are not normally the scallywags some other media outlets are. Secondly, I had never heard of wind turbines being powered up by diesel engines.

So... I looked a little further. Smaller wind turbines are simply driven by the wind. End of story. Some of the very large wind turbines do have a small motor to "kick them away," but as soon as momentum has occurred, inertia keeps them rotating. These "starter" motors are usually electric and only operate for a very short time. An analogy would be the starter motor in your car.

If that video appeared on Mythbusters it would go firmly and unequivocally in to the "Busted" category.

Regards
Paul

---

I don't recall diesel being mentioned in the video?

I also instantly went into the video with a closed mind as soon as I saw the "unvaccinated" T-shirt she was wearing. I don't actually care about what her vaccincation status is, but it instantly tells me she most likely has an anti-government agenda which may bias some of her opinons.


I guess something I should note, a lot of what she is saying doesn't actually seem to be daming wind turbines.... it seems to be more of a policy issue and mishandling of money (if its true).



also here's a youtube version for anyone struggling to download that direct file link (if you want a chuckle read the comments)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAQYpcGqwE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

I don't recall diesel being mentioned in the video?

---

HAB

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't watch the video this time, but relied on my memory from some while ago: A mistake!!

Yes, Ms. Nicol pointed out that the initial power comes from Thermal power and not diesel. However, this is still only a brief "starter motor" moment. While she is correct in implying that the wind turbines are either on or off and that they are unable to move with the variation in demand, I don't think she grasped the way in which the thermal stations control frequency. They are the ones to control the frequency.

Before I explain that, the solar farms and the wind farms typically do not have the ability to generate according to the demand. They could have that ability, but they don't. It would of course be more expensive and that is why they have not built in that feature., although it is likely they will have to include that capability in the future. At the moment, if only wind and solar were available, it would be a disaster, but while ever there are other forms of thermal power (and hydro, particularly hydro) available it is not an issue.

Thermal stations are required as a condition of supplying power to the grid to have a frequency control capability. It is referred to as PFC (Primary Frequency Control). The extent of this capability varies from station to station, but AEMO's aim was for it to be around 15MW up or down. All the thermal generators have to comply with this and there are no extra monies for providing this facility, although that may change in the future: For the moment it is a condition of generating into the grid. The PFC is extremely fast acting and considerable work was put in by the thermal stations to be able to achieve this: Some can only partially comply, but do so within the limitations of their plant.

There are many reasons why supply can be interrupted and it was very glib in the video to point to SA. The big one there was the storms that went through. I don't think that was because of renewables. Nothing I can think of would have survived that.

Just as a point of interest, there is a 500MW interconnector from Vic into SA. SA maximum demand is not normally very much above 2000MW (talking very rounded figures here) and not for very long. The other day I saw their demand was a mere 600MW and at that instance was quite a bit lower than even Tasmania.

I don't know anything about the yearly money she claimed was given to the Wind farms. What Ms. Nicol could have mentioned, but didn't, was Solar companies enjoy a $40/MWhr subsidy. They keep generating until the spot price dips to -$40 and then they pull the plug. The thermal stations in that situation (-$40) back off to their minimum and still lose money. In fact, they begin to back off well before that: Probably more like +$40!!!

Regards
Paul

Wave Energy, Compressed Air, Thermal, Flow batteries.... It's all happening....Maybe.

:)


How to solve our looming energy storage crisis? These companies are exploring high-tech solutions (msn.com)

Regards
Paul

A little bit more on how a wind turbine is started:

Wind Turbine Startup Process (spinningwing.com)

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

A little bit more on how a wind turbine is started:

Wind Turbine Startup Process (spinningwing.com)

Regards
Paul

---

Here’s a little bit on how they are stopped :D (The grin is for my segway because no one gets my sense of humour -not for them being stopped :(). But you’ve got to get your approvals in whether it’s green energy or not…
403 Forbidden. <- not sure why the link looks like that but it still seems to work. It's 403 Forbidden <- darn that didn't work either

has this site been mentioned in the thread? I find it quite useful for keeping up with news

Thanks for both those links Mic.

I think it emphasises that in this burocratic world you have to get the paperwork right if you are going to avoid trouble down the track. Both the instances quoted, where the farms have to be pulled down, had ploughed on without approval. I am mindful that Adani started their mining project in QLD before all the approvals were in place. Hmmm.

Perhaps we should start a complete list of pros and cons of the various forms of electrical power as I have noted an increasing tendency in Australia for offshore wind farms to be knocked back on the grounds of visual pollution. Also while the median size of wind turbines is, say 7MW to 9MW, the largest so far is 15MW made by a Chinese company.

Nothing is perfect.

Regards
Paul

My wife and I were lucky enough to inspect the innards of a second or third generation wind turbine in Germany in 2014, this is a ground level wind turbine housing open for public viewing on one of the wind farms in northern Germany, this turbine was of the generation of the bigger types of wind turbines.

I understood from the technical literature and pictures on the boards inside, that the way the blades start spinning was to have the gearbox in neutral to allow free spinning and once the blades were spinning the gearbox was connected to the shaft and things got underway. I'm not sure if the clutch mechanism was a friction clutch, or a toothed dog clutch, whichever it is, it would have to be strong. Current wind turbines run direct I think, not totally sure, but I think that is how the latest do it.

The gearbox alone, on the ground level wind turbine housing open for inspection to all and sundry, is around the size of a mid-size to slightly bigger automobile, it really is impressively huge, as is almost everything in the rectangular box typical of those early units.

Mick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

Here’s a little bit on how they are stopped :D

---

In Oklahoma, they were forced to dismantle their windfarm because ... “developers failed to acquire a mining lease during or after construction, as well as after issuance of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that a mining lease was required.”

It seems that they failed to get a mining lease to mine the gravel that was used in constructing the wind farm. That made it an illegal construction and the Court rule demolition - after an earlier ruling that a Mining Lease was required was ignored. Crazy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Also while the median size of wind turbines is, say 7MW to 9MW, the largest so far is 15MW made by a Chinese company.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimark

The gearbox alone, on the ground level wind turbine housing open for inspection to all and sundry, is around the size of a mid-size to slightly bigger automobile, it really is impressively huge, as is almost everything in the rectangular box typical of those early units.

Mick.

---

The largest cruise ship in the world is the Icon of the Seas at 250,000 gross tonnes, and it has diesel-electric propulsion - multi-fuel burning LNG, diesel or heavy fuel oil. It has 6 main engines: -

• 3 × Wärtsilä W14V46DFA - 16,030 kW
• 3 × Wärtsilä W12V46DF - 13,740 kW

The largest wind turbines, 15,000 kW, are now generating similar power to the engines in the largest ships in the world! That is a lot of grunt.