Remember me
▼ Content

Surplus electricity from wind power



Page 1 of 212>
Surplus electricity from wind power10-10-2020 19:33
AMinterx
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.
Edited on 10-10-2020 19:59
10-10-2020 20:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7515)
AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.


I was just about to answer your question when I noticed that you don't want answers from me.

Enjoy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2020 21:02
AMinterx
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
Thank you


IBdaMann wrote:
AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.


I was just about to answer your question when I noticed that you don't want answers from me.

Enjoy.


.
11-10-2020 04:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
Your topic is very broad with no specifics.I will give 2 examples of reality
.The Tourist townsite of Coral Bay has 3 wind turbines powering it.The permanant population of workers is around 200.At peak tourist times April to November there can be 5000 plus.There is the back up diesel generator that was installed before the wind generators.The system works as it is very remote and blows its head of most of the year.Huge amounts of dead sea birds that get hit by the blades and they cost a lot of money and resources to make have a short life expectancy and require permanant maintenance.

Wagerup refinery is an Aluminium plant that I worked on in the construction phase in 1980-1981
There were 2 gas turbine generators installed in the power house that the plant needs to run one at 30% to operate the refinary at normal situations.The State government did a deal with the Natural gas plant in the North west and the power company and built a transfer station where the power lines come from Muja in the South.I built the toilet block at the transfer station.Now the refinery runs the turbines with the gas supplied from the North West and generates enough power to run the Capital city of Perth nearly 2 million people.Muja power house is coal driven and is being shutdown if it isn't already.
What I am getting from this is wind can power a small tourist park but not a city.Using natural gas in a forced turbine is way less harmful than burning coal to create steam to move a turbine.
The whole power generation is based around the local enviroment.Muja is based at Collie which has been a coal mining area since the 1800s.Wagerup refinery is at the base of the Darling scarp because the hills behind are rich in Bauxite.On another post you talk of capturing CO2 for some reason.Who is going to do this and why.Please explain what possible motive any company would have to do this
11-10-2020 04:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
The site is called Climate Change Debate not listen to me fools
11-10-2020 04:42
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
duncan61 wrote:
Your topic is very broad with no specifics.I will give 2 examples of reality
.The Tourist townsite of Coral Bay has 3 wind turbines powering it.The permanant population of workers is around 200.At peak tourist times April to November there can be 5000 plus.There is the back up diesel generator that was installed before the wind generators.The system works as it is very remote and blows its head of most of the year.Huge amounts of dead sea birds that get hit by the blades and they cost a lot of money and resources to make have a short life expectancy and require permanant maintenance.

Wagerup refinery is an Aluminium plant that I worked on in the construction phase in 1980-1981
There were 2 gas turbine generators installed in the power house that the plant needs to run one at 30% to operate the refinary at normal situations.The State government did a deal with the Natural gas plant in the North west and the power company and built a transfer station where the power lines come from Muja in the South.I built the toilet block at the transfer station.Now the refinery runs the turbines with the gas supplied from the North West and generates enough power to run the Capital city of Perth nearly 2 million people.Muja power house is coal driven and is being shutdown if it isn't already.
What I am getting from this is wind can power a small tourist park but not a city.Using natural gas in a forced turbine is way less harmful than burning coal to create steam to move a turbine.
The whole power generation is based around the local enviroment.Muja is based at Collie which has been a coal mining area since the 1800s.Wagerup refinery is at the base of the Darling scarp because the hills behind are rich in Bauxite.On another post you talk of capturing CO2 for some reason.Who is going to do this and why.Please explain what possible motive any company would have to do this


Thought Australia spent something like $50 million on a power-wall (several shipping containers, actually) to store surplus wind power. Maybe it was some place else. Was really more interested in the battery management part of the project... Same batteries they use in Tesla cars.

Had to look it up...
https://hackaday.com/2019/12/16/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-and-what-it-means-for-grid-battery-storage/
11-10-2020 05:51
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
Thank you Harvey as always you come through.What a good idea and it is working.I have no problem with power generation from wind or solar if it works
11-10-2020 07:18
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.


This article should answer some of your questions.

" Average sized onshore wind turbines can produce 2.5 to 3 MW of power, offshore wind turbines can produce around 3.6 MW. To put that into perspective, a single offshore turbine can power more than 3,300 average EU households.

Power can be generated 24 hours a day, but requires a wind speed of at least 13 mph for utility scale turbines

The amount of power generated varies greatly at hourly, daily or seasonal timescales which means that often the supply of electricity will outweigh the demand

In a regular wind farm configuration, the power is distributed straight onto the electrical power grid. With no energy storage capability, this requires the turbines to be slowed to sub-optimal speeds when more energy is produced than is required.

Through several different storage processes, excess energy can be stored to be used during periods of lower wind or higher demand.

Battery Storage
Electrical batteries are commonly used in solar energy applications and can be used to store wind generated power. Lead acid batteries are a suitable choice as they are well suited to trickle charging and have a high electrical output charging efficiency.

Compressed Air Storage
Wind turbines can use excess power to compress air, this is usually stored in large above-ground tanks or in underground caverns. When required the compressed air can be used through direct expansion into a compressed air motor. It can also be injected in an internal combustion turbine, where it is burnt with fuel to provide mechanical energy which then powers a generator.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Hydrogen fuel cells can also be used to store excess energy. A hydrogen generator is used to electrolyse water using power generated from the wind turbine, storing the resulting hydrogen and converting it back to electricity using a fuel cell power system when needed.

Pumped Storage
Pumped storage is associated with hydroelectric power generation but is yet to be used with wind power generation. Water could theoretically be pumped up to an elevated reservoir utilizing excess generated power and then be used to drive a water turbine when required. The technology is proven and has been used for centuries, giving a relatively high overall efficiency of 70%. Existing hydroelectric power plants could be utilized if they are in an area suitable for a wind farm.

Almost 633 advanced energy storage projects are presently under development or in full operation around the world."

https://www.azocleantech.com/amp/article.aspx?ArticleID=488

2014 article
11-10-2020 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

There is no such thing as 'surplus' electricity. You use it or lose it.
AMinterx wrote:
If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

This is known as 'ballasting'. Yes. You can store it in batteries or by pumping water up to a higher level, but such systems are VERY expensive and do not store very much energy.
AMinterx wrote:
P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

Ignored. I will reply when and where I want. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-10-2020 18:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
Spongy Iris wrote:
AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.


This article should answer some of your questions.

" Average sized onshore wind turbines can produce 2.5 to 3 MW of power, offshore wind turbines can produce around 3.6 MW. To put that into perspective, a single offshore turbine can power more than 3,300 average EU households.

Power can be generated 24 hours a day, but requires a wind speed of at least 13 mph for utility scale turbines

The amount of power generated varies greatly at hourly, daily or seasonal timescales which means that often the supply of electricity will outweigh the demand

In a regular wind farm configuration, the power is distributed straight onto the electrical power grid. With no energy storage capability, this requires the turbines to be slowed to sub-optimal speeds when more energy is produced than is required.

Through several different storage processes, excess energy can be stored to be used during periods of lower wind or higher demand.

Battery Storage
Electrical batteries are commonly used in solar energy applications and can be used to store wind generated power. Lead acid batteries are a suitable choice as they are well suited to trickle charging and have a high electrical output charging efficiency.

Compressed Air Storage
Wind turbines can use excess power to compress air, this is usually stored in large above-ground tanks or in underground caverns. When required the compressed air can be used through direct expansion into a compressed air motor. It can also be injected in an internal combustion turbine, where it is burnt with fuel to provide mechanical energy which then powers a generator.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Hydrogen fuel cells can also be used to store excess energy. A hydrogen generator is used to electrolyse water using power generated from the wind turbine, storing the resulting hydrogen and converting it back to electricity using a fuel cell power system when needed.

Pumped Storage
Pumped storage is associated with hydroelectric power generation but is yet to be used with wind power generation. Water could theoretically be pumped up to an elevated reservoir utilizing excess generated power and then be used to drive a water turbine when required. The technology is proven and has been used for centuries, giving a relatively high overall efficiency of 70%. Existing hydroelectric power plants could be utilized if they are in an area suitable for a wind farm.

Almost 633 advanced energy storage projects are presently under development or in full operation around the world."

https://www.azocleantech.com/amp/article.aspx?ArticleID=488

2014 article

All forms of ballasting are very expensive. It's cheaper to produce power by using fuel such as oil, coal, or natural gas.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-10-2020 23:49
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
A common statistic I read about wind turbines is their productive use degrades by 1.6% per year (which equals 62.5 years of productive use).

Sunrun solar panels claim a 0.3% per year degradation rate (which equals 300 years of productive use).

Storing the energy in batteries or other devices could provide even more years.

With coal, oil, and gas, people's use is consuming them so there are repeat sales day after day.

With wind and solar it's a one off sale that could last decades or centuries.

Thus there would be a lot less sales occurring if the economy were to become powered primarily by wind and solar, and not by coal, oil, and gas.

We can't have that can we???
Edited on 11-10-2020 23:49
12-10-2020 01:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
Solar panels, wind mills and batteries don't last 20 years... The solar panels, should be easy enough for you to look up, and see the marketing specifications for expected lifespan. Batteries depend on chemistry. Most people get about 5 years out of their car battery... Not sure about the windmill service plan. Of course, there will always be 'breakthroughs' and improvements. 20 years is a long time for technology, and it's likely most of what's being planted now, will be old and obsolete, in 10 years or less. To the point of it being better to replace them, than to continue repairing and servicing. We should be see some of the first windmill torn down, and replaced with a newer model, over the next few years. There were several companies, with their own designs, custom parts, looking for the big farm contracts. They'll want to settle on some standards, and more common, replaceable parts.
12-10-2020 01:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.
12-10-2020 07:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
Spongy Iris wrote:
A common statistic I read about wind turbines is their productive use degrades by 1.6% per year (which equals 62.5 years of productive use).

Made up numbers. Random numbers. Wind generators can catastrophically fail (the machine is destroyed) the day you put them up, days, months, or years from that time. Further, they require regular maintenance. Someone has to climb into the tower annually to service and lubricate the machine.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Sunrun solar panels claim a 0.3% per year degradation rate (which equals 300 years of productive use).

Random numbers. Solar panels are damaged by wind, sand, rain, snow, in other words...weather. You can usually seal against rain pretty well, but snow can put a catastrophic load on the panels, cracking them. Sand blowing in the wind sandblasts the panels, reducing their effectiveness considerably in a very short time. The panels themselves also degrade overtime, especially in the presence of UV light (it darkens the protective layer over the cell).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Storing the energy in batteries or other devices could provide even more years.

Batteries do not increase the lifespan of any energy source that charged them. No ballasting system does. Lithium batteries also age, and will be unable to hold a charge properly after only eight to ten years....sometimes as little as five years. Lead acid cells generally last about five years. They are easier to recycle too.
Spongy Iris wrote:
With coal, oil, and gas, people's use is consuming them so there are repeat sales day after day.

Nah. You fill the tank, it's done. Use a larger tank. Homes often have propane tanks for their heating systems that last a month or more before requiring refilling. Oil and gas power plants have huge tanks. You can run them for a good week on one fill.
Spongy Iris wrote:
With wind and solar it's a one off sale that could last decades or centuries.

No. They require regular maintenance like any machine. They are also expensive, watt for watt. They are piddle power.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus there would be a lot less sales occurring if the economy were to become powered primarily by wind and solar, and not by coal, oil, and gas.

What do you have against sales? People will buy the energy sources they want to use. You don't get to dictate the energy markets. You are not the king.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-10-2020 07:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.


23kw is piddle power. A natural gas fired power plant can easily put out 600 MEGA watts.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-10-2020 12:52
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
Totally agree.My point is if working at max load the wear is massive.Like shooting get a big one and do it gently.The gas turbines at Wagerup can run the entire place they need one turbine at 30% to run the plant with a second motor idle.At 25% load our gen set can power 2 freezer rooms 3 coolrooms and all the lighting in summer the aircons push the load up but the big generators do it easy.Horses for courses
12-10-2020 19:54
James___
★★★★★
(3284)
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?
12-10-2020 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


No. There is no motor in a diesel generator. These have a diesel engine and a generator.

The fuel used is only that required to overcome the friction of the machine and the power being generated. At 25% rated power, it is using only approximately 25% of the fuel.

Maintenance remains the same. Maintenance does not have an 'efficiency'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-10-2020 22:41
James___
★★★★★
(3284)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


No. There is no motor in a diesel generator. These have a diesel engine and a generator.

The fuel used is only that required to overcome the friction of the machine and the power being generated. At 25% rated power, it is using only approximately 25% of the fuel.

Maintenance remains the same. Maintenance does not have an 'efficiency'.



This is ssad ITN. maintenance does have an efficiency. Your obvious "ignorance" is that you don't understand how load and energy consumption matter. I did post a link to a video in calculus which would have helped you to understand this if you had watched it.
If what Duncan61 posted is right, then fuel economy decreases with load. And if you're in the Australian outback, paying for more capacity while under utilizing it might be more cost effective.
It'd be a matter of extra cost for the generating capacity they're not using VS the operational costs. That seems to be what he is suggesting.
And here in the states, we really don't have any remote locations like they do in Australia.
13-10-2020 02:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
The generator will use more fuel under load but it is not on a 1;1 fuel usage.If I see black smoke coming from the exhaust I will switch them over.Good one James you get the remote Australian roadhouse thing.Think the stops on the Nevada desert and you get the Idea.We have thousands of litres for the haulage trucks coming through so the tiny amount we use for power we do not even notice
13-10-2020 02:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.
13-10-2020 02:55
James___
★★★★★
(3284)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.




Harvey55, any diesel locomotive will out perform any diesel engine on the road.
A diesel locomotive converts torque from a diesel engine into an electrical charge like what Duncan61 is on about.
Please visit your local library which has high speed internet mate. Prime movers might get better mileage if they used their diesel engines to drive DC traction motors.
The issue with that might be acceleration. Using traction motors really doesn't allow for changes for speed in the city. And in Australia, about 1/2 of the kilometres driven might not be on a paved road. And yet you'll say Perth to Adelaide is paved.
Can a prime mover allow for both? It's what we're debating. Any thoughts?

This is pretty cool. Between Harvey and Duncan, how does the performance of a diesel engine matter under what condition?
Edited on 13-10-2020 03:32
13-10-2020 10:06
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
It's still the same thing. You increase the load, you increase the amount of work, and burn more fuel. You don't get free energy. The diesel engine just converts one for of energy to another.
13-10-2020 11:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


No. There is no motor in a diesel generator. These have a diesel engine and a generator.

The fuel used is only that required to overcome the friction of the machine and the power being generated. At 25% rated power, it is using only approximately 25% of the fuel.

Maintenance remains the same. Maintenance does not have an 'efficiency'.



This is ssad ITN. maintenance does have an efficiency.

No, it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
Your obvious "ignorance" is that you don't understand how load and energy consumption matter.

I do know how load and energy consumption matter. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I did post a link to a video in calculus which would have helped you to understand this if you had watched it.

No calculus needed. Complexity fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
If what Duncan61 posted is right, then fuel economy decreases with load.

No, it doesn't. Joules are joules.
James___ wrote:
And if you're in the Australian outback, paying for more capacity while under utilizing it might be more cost effective.

It isn't, but having the extra capacity when you need it is a nice capability.
James___ wrote:
It'd be a matter of extra cost for the generating capacity they're not using VS the operational costs. That seems to be what he is suggesting.
And here in the states, we really don't have any remote locations like they do in Australia.

Yes we do. Stretches of Alaska, open prairie, open desert, etc.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 12:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
duncan61 wrote:
The generator will use more fuel under load but it is not on a 1;1 fuel usage.

It basically is, when you discount friction in the machine. Joules are joules.
duncan61 wrote:
If I see black smoke coming from the exhaust I will switch them over.

If you see black smoke coming from the exhaust, your fuel metering is set too high (too rich a mixture). You are making soot.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 12:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.


Generally true. Heavier loads, however, also produce heavier friction (tire friction). Depending on the shape of the load, air resistance may also increase.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 12:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.



Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?


Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.




Harvey55, any diesel locomotive will out perform any diesel engine on the road.

There is less friction. Steel wheels on steel rails are less friction than tires on roads.
James___ wrote:
A diesel locomotive converts torque from a diesel engine into an electrical charge like what Duncan61 is on about.
Please visit your local library which has high speed internet mate. Prime movers might get better mileage if they used their diesel engines to drive DC traction motors.

Nope. Joules are joules. Nothing about traction motors increases or decreases energy required.
James___ wrote:
The issue with that might be acceleration. Using traction motors really doesn't allow for changes for speed in the city.

They have excellent speed control and acceleration in and out of cities.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 23:17
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(297)
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.
14-10-2020 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

Nope. They're both the same. Electric motors are the same too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-10-2020 03:11
James___
★★★★★
(3284)
It's simply a known fact. If anyone understands math and physics, they'll know the answer.

In this example, the train is approximately 3.7 times more efficient at hauling freight, as shown by the ratio 492 train ton-miles per gallon divided by 134 truck ton-miles per gallon.

https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/
17-10-2020 07:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
International (Truck Dump, 5 Ton GS with Winch)

The MK 5 was used extensively in Vietnam
Basic Specifications

Maximum GVW
25,448 lbs (Cross Country), 30,448 lbs (Highway)

Engine
282 cubic inch - 6 cylinder gasoline, with twin carburettors
Bore 3 13/16 inches
Stroke 4 1/8 inches
Max. HP Rating 143 @ 3400 rpm
Max. Torque 237 lbs/ft @ 2300 rpm
Compression Ration 7 : 1
Oil Capacity (Imp Pints) 17

Transmission 5 Speed Constant Mesh (Fuller 5W - 43BT) Direct in Fifth

Axles
Front 8400 lbs capacity
Rear Bogie 17048 lbs capacity
Ratio 7.166

Wheels/Tyres
B8.00 x 20 3 piece single mounting
12.00 x 20, 12 ply rating (x6)

Brakes
Service Air/Hydraulic
Parking Mechanical

Steering Ross S 35

Suspension Leaf Spring

Electrical System 12 Volt - 60 Ah Battery

Lubricants & Capacities


Type
Capacity
Fuel Gasoline 42 gal (gallons)
Cooling System Water 4.5 gal
Axle Front Oil 9 pts (pints)
Axle Inter. " 7 pts
Axle Rear " 7 pts
Transmission " 16 pts
Transfer Case " 13 pts
Winch Case " 9 pts
Power Divider " 3 pts
Hoist " 10 gal


Fuel Target 5 to 6 mpg
Range 300 Miles

Data Summary

Weights (lbs)
Unladen - Front Axle 6776, Rear Bogie 7828. Total Unladen 14604.
Maximum Loading (Highway) - Front Axle 8850, Rear Bogie 21598.
Maximum Loading (Cross Country) - Front Axle 8400, Rear Bogie 17048.

Dimensions
Overall Length 257 in
Width Overall 95 in
Height Overall 119 in
Wheelbase 149 in
Track 73 in
Ground Clearance 13 in
Pintle Hook Height 31 in

Performance

Fording Depth - unprepared 36 in, prepared 78 in.
Turning Circle (kerb to kerb) 64 ft
Angle of Approach 44 deg
Angle of Departure 56 deg
Maximum Gradient (neg.) 1 in 1.67

Recommended Towed Load
Highway 18000 lbs
Cross Country 13000 lbs
Winch Load Capacity 20000 lbs.

Summary

These trucks were built by International Harvester Co, at their Dandenong, Victoria, manufacturing plant.
In its heyday two assembly lines worked in tandem, with Army vehicles occupying one line, and trucks for
commercial use were produced on the other line.
These vehicles, both 4 x 4 and 6 x 6 were designed by ADE and put through their paces at the Army
Engineering testing ground at Monegeetta.
The engine in these vehicles was available in the commercial vehicle, but only with a single carburettor.
Also, the army design with approval, led IHC to developing their first cab-over truck in Australia, which
was known as the AACO (Australian A Line Cab Over) series of vehicle, which was followed later by the
ACCO (Aust C Line Cab Over).

This was the in service truck when I joined the military in May 1983 and we all loved them as they had a wooden tray and even fully loaded with a pack and bren gun I could jump in the back.We switched over to Unimogs in 1985 and unfortunatly we were issued aluminium tray tippers which were considerably higher and very cold to sit on when travelling.The fuel consumption -12.84004256 mpg, m/g (miles per UK gallon)was less than half the 282 petrol truck to do them same job so it made sense to the people at the top and the maintenance on the ageing ACCO was very expensive
17-10-2020 08:48
James___
★★★★★
(3284)
In the US, they're known a little differently. Maybe they might help to illustrate fuel economy? Maybe you can help with this? What's the difference in fuel economy in Adelaide and between Adelaide and Perth?
17-10-2020 10:37
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
They are made by international harvester under licence.I loved them so much I actualy went to an auction when I was due to discharge to buy one.The cargo version was used by catering corp as a supply truck and you could tell it had not been off road.There is no power steering and the steering wheel is massive.It was listed for $6000AUD And I ended up getting a 2 L dyna truck instead as it was already set up as a camper unit and was $3500AUD.I drove from townsville to Perth on Army time and pay and had a ball
17-10-2020 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
James___ wrote:
It's simply a known fact. If anyone understands math and physics, they'll know the answer.

In this example, the train is approximately 3.7 times more efficient at hauling freight, as shown by the ratio 492 train ton-miles per gallon divided by 134 truck ton-miles per gallon.

https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/


Not a fact. A marketing claim.
Trains are more efficient at moving tonnage in general, since they use steel wheels on steel tracks, as opposed to rubber tires on pavement. Air resistance is reduced too, since cars are strung together on a train (sometimes for a couple of miles).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-10-2020 21:49
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(297)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

Nope. They're both the same. Electric motors are the same too.


Wrong. The efficienc of an engine depends on the load. Gasoline engine wastes fuel on low load. Diesel does not lose much efficiency.

Quote from the Internet (test drive of the small VW POLO 1.4 TSI ACT):
"Temporary shutoff of the second and third cylinders – in conjunction with an economical style of driving – reduces fuel consumption by over 0.5 liters per 100 kilometers.
Even with two cylinders the excellently balanced 1.4 TSI runs just as quietly and with low vibration as with four active combustion chambers."

The consumption reduction comes from the fact that the two active cylinders of VW operate at substantially heavier load when the two others are deactivated.
At light loads the efficiency of the spark ignition engine drops a lot.

The bad thing with VW's solution is that the deactivated cylinders still have pistons and piston rings reciprocating inside them consuming energy as friction.

When the VW ACT engine operates at partial loads, it pays its vibration-free quality / smoothness / quietness with the friction (mechanical energy loss) of moving a pair of "useless" pistons / sets of piston rings.

If the two deactivated pistons could be removed, the reduction of the fuel consumption would double (?), as well as the vibrations and the noise.

Unless I am wrong, the two middle cylinders of VW ACT engine are the only ones that are deactivated. What is the long-term effect on the engine after, say, 100.000 miles? Is it clever to operate at heavy load the two "worn" cylinders and leave the actually "unused" pair of cylinders idle? Does it reduce the TBO?

By the way, the "cylinder deactivation" in Diesels is not so good because the friction of the idle cylinders is bigger and because the thermal efficiency of the Diesels at partial loads is not bad.

What the VW Passat TSI ACT proves is that a single combustion per crankshaft rotation is acceptable / adequate for small and medium size cars (a four-stroke with two active cylinders has one combustion per each rotation of the crankshaft).

The same is proved by the four-stroke two-cylinder TwinAir engine of FIAT / Chrysler used in several small / medium size cars like the New Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir. In this case (true twin cylinder engine) the absence of another pair of "driven / inactive / power consuming" cylinders reduces the friction and increases the mileage (as well as the inertia vibrations and the noise).

A well balanced internal combustion engine having one combustion (i.e. one power pulse) per crankshaft rotation seems as the future for "green" small-medium size cars.

With the cylinder-liner rid of intake and exhaust ports, the single-cylinder two-stroke PatPortLess engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPortLess.htm combines among others:
true "four-stroke" lubrication,
true "four-stroke" specific lube consumption,
true "four-stroke" scuffing resistance,
true "four-stroke" emissions,
and one combustion per crankshaft rotation, i.e. as much as the VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT (at partial loads) and as much as the Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir.

As for the smoothness / "vibration-free" quality of the single-cylinder PatPortLess, it is comparable to that of the four-in-line of VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT and it is substantially better than that of the two-cylinder TwinAir of FIAT / Alfa Romeo (last GIF animation in the abovementioned web page).

So, would you consider buying a small - medium size car having a single cylinder engine?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos



This guy knows everything about internal combustion engines.

http://www.pattakon.com/

Check out his patents. I specially like his portable flyer idea.
Edited on 19-10-2020 21:51
19-10-2020 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

Nope. They're both the same. Electric motors are the same too.


Wrong. The efficienc of an engine depends on the load. Gasoline engine wastes fuel on low load. Diesel does not lose much efficiency.

Quote from the Internet (test drive of the small VW POLO 1.4 TSI ACT):
"Temporary shutoff of the second and third cylinders – in conjunction with an economical style of driving – reduces fuel consumption by over 0.5 liters per 100 kilometers.
Even with two cylinders the excellently balanced 1.4 TSI runs just as quietly and with low vibration as with four active combustion chambers."

The consumption reduction comes from the fact that the two active cylinders of VW operate at substantially heavier load when the two others are deactivated.
At light loads the efficiency of the spark ignition engine drops a lot.

The bad thing with VW's solution is that the deactivated cylinders still have pistons and piston rings reciprocating inside them consuming energy as friction.

When the VW ACT engine operates at partial loads, it pays its vibration-free quality / smoothness / quietness with the friction (mechanical energy loss) of moving a pair of "useless" pistons / sets of piston rings.

If the two deactivated pistons could be removed, the reduction of the fuel consumption would double (?), as well as the vibrations and the noise.

Unless I am wrong, the two middle cylinders of VW ACT engine are the only ones that are deactivated. What is the long-term effect on the engine after, say, 100.000 miles? Is it clever to operate at heavy load the two "worn" cylinders and leave the actually "unused" pair of cylinders idle? Does it reduce the TBO?

By the way, the "cylinder deactivation" in Diesels is not so good because the friction of the idle cylinders is bigger and because the thermal efficiency of the Diesels at partial loads is not bad.

What the VW Passat TSI ACT proves is that a single combustion per crankshaft rotation is acceptable / adequate for small and medium size cars (a four-stroke with two active cylinders has one combustion per each rotation of the crankshaft).

The same is proved by the four-stroke two-cylinder TwinAir engine of FIAT / Chrysler used in several small / medium size cars like the New Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir. In this case (true twin cylinder engine) the absence of another pair of "driven / inactive / power consuming" cylinders reduces the friction and increases the mileage (as well as the inertia vibrations and the noise).

A well balanced internal combustion engine having one combustion (i.e. one power pulse) per crankshaft rotation seems as the future for "green" small-medium size cars.

With the cylinder-liner rid of intake and exhaust ports, the single-cylinder two-stroke PatPortLess engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPortLess.htm combines among others:
true "four-stroke" lubrication,
true "four-stroke" specific lube consumption,
true "four-stroke" scuffing resistance,
true "four-stroke" emissions,
and one combustion per crankshaft rotation, i.e. as much as the VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT (at partial loads) and as much as the Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir.

As for the smoothness / "vibration-free" quality of the single-cylinder PatPortLess, it is comparable to that of the four-in-line of VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT and it is substantially better than that of the two-cylinder TwinAir of FIAT / Alfa Romeo (last GIF animation in the abovementioned web page).

So, would you consider buying a small - medium size car having a single cylinder engine?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos



This guy knows everything about internal combustion engines.

http://www.pattakon.com/

Check out his patents. I specially like his portable flyer idea.


I'm an aircraft mechanic, dope. I design, rebuild, and repair aircraft engines. I am an expert in Subaru repair particularly. I know what these engines can and cannot do. I know the power curve of them. I also have been a locomotive engineer, using an external combustion engine, also maintaining it.

I am also an instrumentation designer and engineer, designing instruments for industrial, aerospace, automotive, and medical industries.

Now you can choose to believe that or not, but I do know engine efficiencies and what factors go into them.

Strawman fallacies. Buzzword fallacies. Compositional error fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-10-2020 23:50
20-10-2020 10:12
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(297)
Now you can choose to believe that or not, but I do know engine efficiencies and what factors go into them.


So why do you deny that the efficiency depends on the load? I just can not uderstand it. Also the guy I quoted is a mechanical genius. God knows how many patents he already has. All of his engine designes are perfectly balanced. Better than R4, V6, R6, V12 etc etc which are not perfectly balanced. The rotary engine however is perfectly balanced. A perfectly balanced engine is super smooth and does not vibrate.
20-10-2020 16:38
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1837)
ITM,
I would also be interested in your explanation of efficiency. A gasser will burn around 4 times the fuel at idle compared with an equal size diesel. Are we misusing the term "efficiency"?
20-10-2020 19:30
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(297)
Check out this diesel engine design, making above 6000 rmp-s and being more efficient in medium range rpm-s than conventional engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4hsMcvicLI&ab_channel=pattakoncom


ITN, since you know a lot about aviation, what do you think about his portable flyer idea?

http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonFly.htm
Edited on 20-10-2020 19:43
20-10-2020 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
Xadoman wrote:
Now you can choose to believe that or not, but I do know engine efficiencies and what factors go into them.


So why do you deny that the efficiency depends on the load?

I don't.
Xadoman wrote:
I just can not uderstand it.
Because you do not pay attention.
Xadoman wrote:
Also the guy I quoted is a mechanical genius.
Your opinion. Not mine.
Xadoman wrote:
God knows how many patents he already has.
Patents don't mean much in this regard.
Xadoman wrote:
All of his engine designes are perfectly balanced.
Not true.
Xadoman wrote:
Better than R4, V6, R6, V12 etc etc which are not perfectly balanced.
No engine is perfectly balanced, not even jet engines. All of these engines get pretty damn close though.
Xadoman wrote:
The rotary engine however is perfectly balanced.
Nope. Same as the others.
Xadoman wrote:
A perfectly balanced engine is super smooth and does not vibrate.

All engines vibrate. No engine is perfect.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Surplus electricity from wind power:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Do we handle electricity correct?1621-12-2019 01:31
California Historic Power Outage!1926-10-2019 17:58
Used Wind Turbine Blades?312-10-2019 21:41
The Power That Mitch has201-10-2019 11:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact