It has like 100 times more moving parts that can break.
Reinvented wind turbine generates five times more energy than its competitors
11–15 of 15 posts
Re: Reinvented wind turbine generates five times more energy than its competitors
#12In addition to the concerns already raised here, one other thing stuck out to me: the whole system is easier to manufacture, build, and maintain. Heggheim says it has a design lifespan of 50 years
My naive feeling is that it's extraordinarily difficult to design for 50 year lifespan in an environment as hostile as the North Sea. This isn't a naval vessel. You can't just keep slapping fresh coats of paint over everything.
Am I wrong? Wouldn't salt ions, seawater, trace sea minerals, etc eventually just permeate everything?
Re: Reinvented wind turbine generates five times more energy than its competitors
#13> In ideal conditions, where the wind is at its strongest, one wind catcher unit could produce up to 400 gigawatt-hours of energy. By comparison, the largest, most powerful wind turbine on the market right now produces up to 80 gigawatt-hours. Up to now, I was under the impression that wind turbines produced energy, but apparently they just store it. [eyeroll] Seriously, looking up the specs on the turbine they're co…
Not that bad if 22 of these could replace a nuclear plant
I haven't done the math, and I could be way off, but probably 22 square miles of solar panels could replace a nuclear plant. At probably less cost, considering that the latest nuclear plant (perhaps the last to ever be built in the USA) is projected to cost over $27 Billion.[1] Billion with a B.
PV solar has, unfortunately, the same problem as windmills. How do you store the energy for a "rainy day" (heh heh)? Nuclear plants are pretty good at operating in rainy weather and at night.
Re: Reinvented wind turbine generates five times more energy than its competitors
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that bad if 22 of these could replace a nuclear plant
I haven't done the math, and I could be way off, but probably 22 square miles of solar panels could replace a nuclear plant. At probably less cost, considering that the latest nuclear plant (perhaps the last to ever be built in the USA) is projected to cost over $27 Billion.[1] Billion with a B. PV solar has, unfortunately, the same problem as windmills. How do you store the energy for a "rainy day" (heh heh)? Nuclea…
~14,000 acres of solar panels (plus maintenance and stuff) is no easy feat tho.
Coincidentally, that's the size of the largest solar park in the world -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
Re: Reinvented wind turbine generates five times more energy than its competitors
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't done the math, and I could be way off, but probably 22 square miles of solar panels could replace a nuclear plant. At probably less cost, considering that the latest nuclear plant (perhaps the last to ever be built in the USA) is projected to cost over $27 Billion.[1] Billion with a B. PV solar has, unfortunately, the same problem as windmills. How do you store the energy for a "rainy day" (heh heh)? Nuclea…
~14,000 acres of solar panels (plus maintenance and stuff) is no easy feat tho. Coincidentally, that's the size of the largest solar park in the world -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park
Nice link.
Loosely speaking, that park is about equal to a nuke (most nuke plants are in the range of 800 to 1000 MWe). At about 5% of the cost of the Southern Energy nuclear plant I mentioned. (pedantic note: I think of a "nuke" as a single reactor, the Southern plant actually has two. Many nuclear plants are twins).
Now if only we could get that pesky energy storage thing figured out. About 14,000 adjacent acres of Li batteries ought to do it, right? :-) Or maybe we just put the batteries under the solar cells?