charlie hebdoYour last statement shows an ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the many North Sea wind farms in operation for years.
I'm certainly of the opinion that we should build them, and lots of them, if governments are willing to put up the money and game the environmental regulations to get them there. Same for harvested tidal power and even thermal difference extraction. On the other hand, I also think we made a mistake not building powersats, and continue to make a mistake not working toward them...
I don't believe you gave a straightforward answer to Tom about the copper.
I don't care for polemics, which is largely what I think STCO drew her numbers from. It's relatively easy to get objective information on the design and provision -- and service life and disposition -- of wind turbines if we don't choose to have some preconceived ax to grind about them.
Incidentally, Paul can check this, but I think a considerable reduction in copper has resulted from the adoption of high-strength magnets in the turbine generator design, at the cost of some high-wind operability.
Per Wikipedia Copper in renewable energy - Wikipedia
The amount of copper in each wind generator, however, may not be in multiple tons
"A single 660-kW turbine is estimated to contain some 800 pounds of copper."
Becore claiming vindication in this revelation:
"The copper usage intensity of renewable energy systems is four to six times higher than in fossil fuel or nuclear plants. So for example, while conventional power requires approximately 1 tonne of copper per installed megawatt (MW), renewable technologies such as wind and solar require four to six times more copper per installed MW. This is because copper is spread over much larger land areas, particularly in solar and wind energy power plants,[16] and there is a need for long runs of power and grounding cables to connect components that are widely dispersed, including to energy storage systems and to the main electrical grid."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
OvermodI'm with Eric; aside from blue hydrogen with segregation, I don't see a renewable solution that's better than nuclear. What's going to be more than usually comical will the the shucking and jiving that occurs after the first few massive weather events taking out offshore wind farm equipment. You read it here first.
I agree with Eric that much of the solution will be with nuclear.
Your last statement shows an ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the many North Sea wind farms in operation for years. Winds and wave conditions there in winter particularly are very harsh, yet I think few have had the catastrophic damage you predict so glibly for here offshore.
I don't believe you gave a straightforward answer to Tom about the copper. The answer I found was:"Generators use 1,900 pounds of copper in the 1.5MW Wind Turbine." An additional amount would be used for the cable to the ground, grounding rings etc. A 53' trailer can handle 35,000-40,000 pounds.
Murphy SidingYou'll never convince me that it take 2+ semi loads of copper to build a wind tower.
I was taught an interesting story back in the '70s when I studied statics and was learning about the domino section and mushroom-headed concrete construction. Seems there was a warehouse built with monolithic mushroom-headed column and floor construction, and during WWII someone noticed peculiar spalling patterns on the ground-floor columns, not a sign of poor construction, but apparently massive overloading, for which no obvious source could be initially identified. Inspectors started going floor-to-floor to try to identify the problem... what they found was that someone, as I recall on the eighth floor, had been warehouse-stockpiling little tin ingots. Piled 'em up across the floor, then started stacking a layer on top, then another layer on top of that...
Apparently they had worked up to about 3' depth of little tin ingots, and said to the inspectors there was plenty of room in the floor-to-floor for more.
We've discussed how some cargoes weigh out before they cube out and vice versa. This was a dramatic example of misassessing the former.
If you were actually interested in the components of wind turbines, the data shouldn't be hard to find. My principal complaint with them is that they were billed, at least tacitly, as a permanent solution, or at least one with a service life longer than fixed power plants. And that, as a nominally 'green' solution, they were designed with recyclability in mind.
I waited with bated breath for cheap 93% pure silicon to come along for many years -- that being billed (amusingly enough, by Stanford) as a 'gateway' to inexpensive-enough solar generation. Of course the premise was that you put up the solar panels and got your free power indefinitely happy ever after. I was actually astounded that vacuum solar panels had a relatively short life before they 'leaked' or their faces got damaged. It remains to be seen whether more modern fabrication and construction translates into more lifetime for the doubtless much increased distributed installation of PV and combined solar that will be expected before 2040.
I'm with Eric; aside from blue hydrogen with segregation, I don't see a renewable solution that's better than nuclear. What's going to be more than usually comical will the the shucking and jiving that occurs after the first few massive weather events taking out offshore wind farm equipment. You read it here first.
Shadow the Cats owner Here's some facts about what it takes to make a so called green power windmill. 400 tons of steel 100 tons of virgin copper for the wiring as you can't recycle copper pure enough for wire. 50 tons of composite materials for the blades. And approximately 500 gallons of lubricant oils and grease to keep it moving. That's just for the windmill itself and doesn't include the base and the cement and reinforcement steel used in it. Or the fuel needed to haul them into place the transformers needed to convert the power. It's been said that most windmills barely pay for themselves in terms of actual carbon footprint needed to create them. Yet they are loved by the environmental wack jobs in the world. Just remember that to create that steel requires either a massive amount of electricity to remelt the scrap steel or melt create new steel from materials mined from the earth. A copper mine that used acid to wash the ore almost makes a lithium mine look good.
Here's some facts about what it takes to make a so called green power windmill. 400 tons of steel 100 tons of virgin copper for the wiring as you can't recycle copper pure enough for wire. 50 tons of composite materials for the blades. And approximately 500 gallons of lubricant oils and grease to keep it moving. That's just for the windmill itself and doesn't include the base and the cement and reinforcement steel used in it. Or the fuel needed to haul them into place the transformers needed to convert the power. It's been said that most windmills barely pay for themselves in terms of actual carbon footprint needed to create them. Yet they are loved by the environmental wack jobs in the world. Just remember that to create that steel requires either a massive amount of electricity to remelt the scrap steel or melt create new steel from materials mined from the earth. A copper mine that used acid to wash the ore almost makes a lithium mine look good.
I'm not a windmill builder and neither are you. I spend my weekends in an area where they are building lots of new wind towers. You'll never convince me that it take 2+ semi loads of copper to build a wind tower. I'd guess you are probably just pulling info off the internet without considering if it sounds plausible or not.I edited this because I see that I fogot the part where I was quoting Shadow the cat's owner. What I'm questioning is whether she's supplying numbers that are realistic or numbers pulling out of air.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Gramp, Regarding recharge stations, it's possible as a way to offer the service and not pay the power company a hook up charge and a minimum monthly purchase of electricity for the capacity required. Here's what I do know, base load is carried by hydro and thermal (coal, gas, petroleum). Wind and solar are not dependable in most places so they are used for peaking power when conditions are favorable. The real back up is diesel and gas turbine peaking plants.
From Nov 1964 Trains "Born at Beloit"
“Standing in a neat row on the property of the Nevada Power Company at Las Vegas are 11 blue and white objects slightly resembling diesel locomotive hoods. They are “peaking plants”, diesel-electric power plants which handle swings in the electric power load of the region”
This one plant was almost 40,000 horsepower. Why use diesels or gas turbines? Because they can respond almost instanteously when needed, where other forms of plants take a considerably longer time to be brought on line. As example, I was in the hospital last year. Late one afternoon, in the midst of a thunderstorm, our feed from the grid failed. My room was on the same side as the diesel powered emergeny generators, which started with an almighty crash and were fully operational so quickly that the lights barely flickered.
GrampIs it true that many of these Electricity recharge stations that have been popping up use diesel fueled generators to produce the electricity people are charging their cars with?
There was some discussion that, in order to provide 'national' coverage for electric trucks (and perhaps to expand it for cars) some islanded local power generation and storage might have to be provided. I'd expect at least some of this to be natural gas rather than diesel and perhaps even GTCC at scale, but something like B100 is a perfectly 'thinkable' zero-net-carbon renewable alternative.
tree68 charlie hebdo As usual, the trucker woman is spreading non-factual information that has a political basis. So, enlighten us - what is the correct information?
charlie hebdo As usual, the trucker woman is spreading non-factual information that has a political basis.
As usual, the trucker woman is spreading non-factual information that has a political basis.
So, enlighten us - what is the correct information?
The quantity of copper stated by STCO sounds high (ISTR 10 to 20 tons), but the weight of steel and composites is close to figures I've come across for a wind turbine with a 5MW nameplate capacity. Another figure I've run across is that the wind turbine industry uses about a half billion dollars worth of lubricating oil per year in the US.
Note that the best capacity factors (power production averaged over a long period of time, typically 1 or more years, divided by the nameplate capacity) for land based wind turbines may at best be 33%, versus 90% for a nuclear plant and quite frequently may be less than 25%.
Gramp A different track for a second. Is it true that many of these Electricity recharge stations that have been popping up use diesel fueled generators to produce the electricity people are charging their cars with?
A different track for a second. Is it true that many of these Electricity recharge stations that have been popping up use diesel fueled generators to produce the electricity people are charging their cars with?
I can only go with what I've seen - any such station I've observed appeared to use power off the grid.
I would opine that any location that would use a genset would be one that cannot get the necessary line power for the job.
Unless, of course, it's cheaper to use Diesel fuel than pay the KWHr rates.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Butanol is significant as an oxygenate fuel that can be transported in the existing hydrocarbon-fuel pipeline distribution infrastructure.
NMP was one of the premier solvents for extraction and purification of carbon from coal or other feedstock. That represented in the 1970s an attractive processing choice to remove ash and other contaminants without expensive aftertreatment, baghouses, etc. -- of course that was still in the era that CO2 was regarded as a neutral product of combustion. SRC is still potentially attractive if full post-combustion segregation is to be practiced as in some 'clean coal' approaches, as there are few contaminants in the combustion gas.
The GVL is apparently a reasonable solvent or cosolvent for SRC as well as one of the potential 'green fuels' that can be synthesized at what today is a competitive delivered price.
Overmod Paul Milenkovic he who was completing a Mechanical Engineering PhD in automobile engine combustion was going to work on high-compression gasoline engines offering much higher fuel economy. Think very carefully about what this implies, and then extend the concept to larger compression-ignition or promoter-enriched engines. Then renember why this is relevant: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/materials/materials-12-00350/article_deploy/materials-12-00350.pdf Incidentally, although this has become massively 'depopularized', gamma-valerolactone is supposed to be nearly as good a solvent for SRC as n-methyl pyrrolidone, and good SRC (or equivalent from renewable feedstock like torrefied biomass) is one of the keys to effective CO2 segregation from combustion exhaust... supposedly Europeans are gearing up to produce GVL in mass quantity as a 'green solvent' with economic significance possibly comparable to d-limonene...
Paul Milenkovic he who was completing a Mechanical Engineering PhD in automobile engine combustion was going to work on high-compression gasoline engines offering much higher fuel economy.
Think very carefully about what this implies, and then extend the concept to larger compression-ignition or promoter-enriched engines.
Then renember why this is relevant:
https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/materials/materials-12-00350/article_deploy/materials-12-00350.pdf
Incidentally, although this has become massively 'depopularized', gamma-valerolactone is supposed to be nearly as good a solvent for SRC as n-methyl pyrrolidone, and good SRC (or equivalent from renewable feedstock like torrefied biomass) is one of the keys to effective CO2 segregation from combustion exhaust... supposedly Europeans are gearing up to produce GVL in mass quantity as a 'green solvent' with economic significance possibly comparable to d-limonene...
You lost me on that last post.
The PDF you link to describes butanol, an alcohol with a longer carbon backbone than ethanol and hence with an energy density closer to gasoline. I am familiar with butanol because a chemical engineering professor at UW-Madison has conducted research into it.
Essentially, biofuels such as butanol may be an alternative to storage batteries as a carbon-neutral energy source for transportation, not only cars and railroad locomotives but potentially aircraft, for which batteries are a long way off as a solution except for very short "hops."
Your remarks about GVL gamma-valerolactone are "woosh" over my head, but I think you are talking about exhaust treatments from the combustion of carbon/hydrocarbon fuels that can remove the CO2, to be "sequestered" in geologic formations.
I am hard pressed to see how this would help with a locomotive let alone an automobile, but maybe this would be effective for stationary power plants?
Yes or no what just happens to the windmill blades when they retire them. They're buried in a landfill not even recycled. I've got friends who work in the local area wind farms and the laugh when people call them a great green source for energy. One of them called windmills the biggest scam ever fleeced onto the market for environmentally friendly people he calls electric cars the second one.
Paul Milenkoviche who was completing a Mechanical Engineering PhD in automobile engine combustion was going to work on high-compression gasoline engines offering much higher fuel economy.
tree68So, enlighten us - what is the correct information?
Analogous to this situation, my teaching assistant from Iran was leaving her position at the university because she was completing her PhD studies. When "visitors" to her PhD defense were asked to leave the room while the professors on her committee were finalizing their deliberations, I engaged her husband, also from Iran, in conversation about their plans. Both accepted jobs at Ford Motor Company -- she as an Electrical Engineering PhD in Machine Learning was going to work on self-driving cars, and he who was completing a Mechanical Engineering PhD in automobile engine combustion was going to work on high-compression gasoline engines offering much higher fuel economy.
I asked him whether improving the fuel efficiency of gasoline-powered automobiles had a long-term future, especially with the progress made on electric cars. He responded that electric cars have their own limitations. Whereas petroleum is a limiting resource for the operation of gasoline and diesel-powered automobiles, in his opinion, the manufacture of electric cars uses a number of scarce resources in their batteries and motors.
I listened respectfully to what he told me, that perhaps progress in making more fuel-efficient gasoline or even hybrid automobiles is an alternative, parallel track to addressing both Peak Oil and Climate Change and that plans to mandate pure-electric cars should be evaluated in terms of a bigger picture.
I will let someone else craft an alternative reaction to those remarks that includes the terms "Iranian", "legacy automobile company", "oil producing state", "non-factual", "Middle East", "woman", "political basis" and "denier."
MidlandMike Great, now how much steel, copper and concrete does it take to build a thermal power plant?
Great, now how much steel, copper and concrete does it take to build a thermal power plant?
A single 710-8 can generate as much power on an annual basis as the wind turbine described in STCO's post. We're not even taking into account the materials needed for the energy storage needed to allow a wind turbine to approximate dispatchable generation.
With coal seams as thick as in the Powder River Basin, the amount of coal under the land taken up be a 3 to 5MW namepate capacity wind turbine would generate about as much energy as would be generated by the wind turbine.
My personal take is the most benign form of very low carbon energy would be nuclear for baseload with rooftop solar for daytime peaking.
Shadow the Cats ownerHere's some facts about what it takes to make a so called green power windmill. ...
Shadow the Cats owner It's been said that most windmills barely pay for themselves in terms of actual carbon footprint needed to create them.
Who said that? Also, how much coal will be burned over the life of a coal fired power plant?
I expect there will be more incentive for the railroads to electrify once the long haul trucking industry has gone electric. At that theoretical future time the fuel efficiency of steel wheels on steel rail will be forcing the railroads to accept the business they don't currently wish to be bothered with. The extra volume might then make the economic case for electrifying more persuasive.
But, there's plenty of electricity!
Unless there isn't.
One word - Texas.
What is the appropriate measure to use when using electricity as a "fuel"? When its supply becomes tight, how is electricity to be allocated? How much does it cost to "fill up" an electric vehicle be it a locomotive, truck, or car?
Perhaps we should determine what measures were taken to eliminate the glacier ice which once covered much of the USA.
Overmod,
The premise I referred to starts today as the conclusion that one day everything will be electrified, and thus railroads too will be electrified. That may be true, but I am referring to what will motivate the railroads to begin electrification in the present moment as is the author of the article. So my point is that I doubt railroads will decide today to electrify simply because of the assumption that everything will be electrified by some time in the future.
What is really needed to convince the railroads to electrify is to convince them that electrification is necessary to prevent climate change. Apparently it is the railroads who are the "ostrich."
EuclidI doubt that tepid premise will convince U.S. freight railroads to electrify.
A somewhat more gainful discussion is 'if railroad electrification becomes a national priority, what carrots and sticks might be used to start bringing it about, and how should the stages of transition be managed once we see initiation of the (likely government) program(s)?'
Technical answers do exist, and they now include interesting Chinese developments in rapid TLM with electrification infrastructure. Anyone familiar with the competing 'systems' used to erect the New York elevated railroads in the 1870s... or who watched the expansion of fiber network trunks in the 1990s... knows the art of the possible, even under stringent ecological restrictions, when the funding is assured.
charlie hebdo BEAUSABRE charlie hebdo If you have to ask, it means you are a climate change ostrich. Add Quote to your Post Ad hominum attacks means you've lost the argument and know it Corrections: 1. Simply stating nicely what is your position is not a personal attack. Are you are ashamed of being a climate warming denier. 2. It's spelled ad hominem.
BEAUSABRE charlie hebdo If you have to ask, it means you are a climate change ostrich. Add Quote to your Post Ad hominum attacks means you've lost the argument and know it
charlie hebdo If you have to ask, it means you are a climate change ostrich. Add Quote to your Post
Ad hominum attacks means you've lost the argument and know it
Corrections: 1. Simply stating nicely what is your position is not a personal attack. Are you are ashamed of being a climate warming denier. 2. It's spelled ad hominem.
Your comment suggests that member, BEAUSABRE does not understand that the reason to electrify goes beyond simple private business cost/benefit analysis, and extends to a presumed collective obligation to prevent manmade climate change. And to convey this point, you used the ostrich analogy which is a mocking charge of naive ignorance. Actually, BEAUSABRE never indicated a lack of understanding of the connection to the climate change issue.
Yet, the article you link to your first post also, just like BEAUSABRE, takes the case for electrification right up to the same point of electrification failing to meet the cost/benefit qualification. Then it jumps to the conclusion that the way to overcome the failing economic case is for the Government to step in and “PUSH” for national freight electrification. The author does not explain what he means by “push,” but I assume it means publically finance and mandate.
The article says:
“However, I don’t think you’ll see a big return on investment because the capital costs for electrification of the infrastructure are big. And if you run the math, it doesn’t really make much sense.”
“Since the capital costs are high, I think the second partner would be the government. I think there should be some incentive for electrification. There should be some policy objective that could try to push the market towards some percentage of electrification.”
So, clearly, just like BEAUSABRE, the author says there is no private business economic incentive for electrification. Then the author just stops there, short of the obvious reason why he and others in his camp believe that electrification is absolutely necessary to address climate change. All he says about this real reason why he advocates electrification is this:
“…at the end of the day, the world is moving to electric power. And the grid is decarbonizing,…”
I doubt that tepid premise will convince U.S. freight railroads to electrify.
Overmod... Once all the infrastructure is in place, the bridges have been raised, the access issues have been finalized, etc. we can have the discussion about "replacing" locomotive consists with straight electric. But I'd surely be well into discussion of implementing ECP many years before that -- and I'd make the ECP transition a priority over full electrification coverage.
Once all the infrastructure is in place, the bridges have been raised, the access issues have been finalized, etc. we can have the discussion about "replacing" locomotive consists with straight electric. But I'd surely be well into discussion of implementing ECP many years before that -- and I'd make the ECP transition a priority over full electrification coverage.
My understanding is that current standards for bridges over railroads require a minimum height above the top of rail of 25 feet.
With domestic double stacks being 20 feet 2 inches high - is 25 feet high enough to allow catenary to be strung under the bridge and not have issues with the 20'2" double stacks.?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In my opinion, almost any 'electrification' that does not involve hybrid or dual-mode-lite power is DOA for freight use in this country unless and until full catenary infrastructure has been provided. Even then there are compelling advantages to keeping 'autonomous power' in locomotive consists for a variety of reasons.
There are obvious advantages to electrification for dense passenger operations and for true HSR. Either of those will be a niche market at best in this country until major and sustained Government buy-in is secured, or guaranteed incentives (and possibly more) to private consortia are assured. Almost any practical construction of traction electrical supply makes far better sense in essentially any respect for use 'augmenting' dual-mode-lite than as a modal replacement for self-contained power.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.