Remember me
▼ Content

THIS MONTH'S WORLD'S LARGEST WIND TURBINE GOES OPERATIONAL


THIS MONTH'S WORLD'S LARGEST WIND TURBINE GOES OPERATIONAL28-07-2023 02:42
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Link

A new wind turbine installed in the Taiwan Strait went online last week, as part of the Fujian offshore wind farm project by the China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG). The system is the MySE 16-260, designed by the Ming Yang Wind Power Group, one of the leading manufacturers of wind turbines in the world. The numbers are staggering, the 16MW generator is projected to provide 66 GWh (gigawatt-hours) to the power grid annually. And this is a hefty installation, with a 260 m rotor diameter ( three each 123 m blades ) sitting atop a 152 m tower. The location is both a blessing and a curse, being an area of the Pacific that experiences Beaufort level 7 winds ( near gale, whole trees in motion ) for more than 200 days per year. Understandably, the tower and support structures are beefy, designed to survive sustained winds of 287 km/h.

This 16 MW installation surpasses the previous record holder, announced this January — the Vesta V236-15.0MW turbine with 115.5 m blades, located in Denmark's Østerild Wind Turbine Test Center. But wait ... Ming Yang also announced in January their new 18 MW turbine with 140 m long blades.

We imagine that there will eventually be a natural plateau, where the cost of the next humongous installation approaches or exceeds that of multiple smaller ones. Or will these multi-megawatt turbine systems just keep leapfrogging each other, year after year? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.


Of course the article doesn't give the cost to build an install... But the key points are China, China, China... Which leads manufacturing of solar panels, windmills, and batteries... But, oddly still building coal-fired power plants. I would care so much about folks going 'green', if our Federal Tax Dollars were only spent on domestically manufactured parts and materials. Joe Biden is literally spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Made in China energy products, where the same money could have gone toward domestic manufacturing of the same products. The money stays in our economy, creates jobs, and revenue. Why is Joe investing our money, in China? I would make better sense to make all our own, since they aren't going to last forever. It's not just new installations, but many years of replacement parts. There is a huge worldwide market. Not to mention always on China's hook for replacement parts, or risk billions already wasted on these eyesores, and bird killers. China also leads in batteries, which are going to continue to be crucial to the 'green'. Windmills and solar farms suffer the same weakness, no energy storage. Use it, or lose it, as generated. With fossil-fuels, the energy is already stored in the fuel, burned as needed. Wind and solar aren't power on demand, all the time, anytime, any where, like with fossil-fuels. The need to store energy during peak production is crucial, batteries being our best option. China just has to shutdown production an shipping, until they get any concession they want. It's not just about the money, Joe Biden is locking us into dependence.
28-07-2023 06:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2996)
HarveyH55 wrote:
the key points are China, China, China... Which leads manufacturing of solar panels, windmills, and batteries... But, oddly still building coal-fired power plants.


Bingo.
RE: Sceptical about Wind Turbines29-07-2023 16:54
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
I would like to voice my skepticism to the Alternative Energy Policy. I am a retired Engineer and have spent much time studying the science behind the changes that are proposed to go to Net Zero. I have listened to many other engineers and scientists in the field in order to bolster my knowledge on the subject. Because of this, I believe the following:

1) There is no real crisis and CO2 is not a primary driver of the changes in our climate. The changes have been over exaggerated by our media;not unusual! The reason why we don't hear the other side of the debate is because the other voices of reason have been censored; the science is certainly not settled.

2) In any case, Net Zero is impossible with the proposed Wind Turbines, Solar Panels and Battery technology we are preparing to implement.

3) According to a Professor of metallurgy from Finland, there are not enough metals that we can extract in time to build the infrastructure and EV's that would be needed to get to the Net Zero Target. With the present rate of metals extraction we would need to open up new mines all over the world and would need 90 plus years to produce the Copper, 400 years to produce the Nickel, etc, etc.

4) It has been calculated that if the USA was to go 100% renewable energy, they would need to cover 30% of the entire area of their country in Wind Turbines, Solar panels and Battery banks. This is ridiculous!

5) The move to Renewable Energy creates almost as many problems as it purports to solve. As of the present time, solar panels, wind turbine blades, solar panels and Lithium batteries are either hard and expensive to recycle or impossible to recycle. Wind turbines have only been with us for a relatively short time and there already are huge graveyards of used blades littering the landscape, (mostly out of view at the moment). Some engineers have stated that the Turbines produce very little energy in their short 15 years of life.

6) Wind Turbines have been estimated to kill well over 1 million birds each year in the US by 2030. Some of these are protected species such as eagles and hawks. Often, large areas of land have to be cleared for wind farms. This is looking less ecological all the time.

6) Engineers have said that the recent acceleration of power prices is due to this 'panicked' shift to new technologies. People have had much trouble already, in meeting their power bills and it appears like this is not the end. Alternative energy is not ready to tackle a problem that appears not to exist and our people on lower incomes will pay the price for this ill-calculated rush for change.

In case there is doubt about some of the scientists that oppose this climate scaremongering, I have listed their names below:

Scientists that are Anthropogenic climate change deniers. (40 so far)
*********************************************************************
William Kinninmont, Dr. David Bellamy, Prof Ian Clark, Bob Carter, David Evans, Garth Paltrigde, Joanne Nova, David Archibald, & Jennifer Marohasy, Dr Chris Landsea, Marc Morano, Dan Pena, Prof Ian Plimer (geologist),Prof. Piers Corbyn, Prof. Richard Lindzen(MIT Atmospheric scientist), Murray Salby, Dr Patrick
Michaels, Prof William Happer. Nils-Axel Morner (States sea level is NOT rising), Jay Lehr, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Peter Ridd(GB Reef not dying)
Dr Willie Soon, Dr Elliot Bloom, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, Henrik Svensmark, Richard Tol, Freeman Dyson. Prof. Tom Harris. Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Tim Lenton.
Ivar Giaever(Nobel Laureate), Gregory Whitehouse, Anton Horvath, Boris Molnar(top-level oceanographer and meteorologist), Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, Mallen Baker (Broadcaster), Greg Flato(Climate scientist), Dr John Christy (Climate Scientist), Michael Shellenberger, Gregg Braden (geologist), Steve Milloy (Lawyer/lobbyist, Started junkscience.com), Dr Patrick Moore (Started Green peace), David Dilley (Climatologist), Patrick Michaels (Cato Institute), Gregory Whitestone(CO2 Coalition), James Taylor, Pres. of Heartland Institute) Dr John Clauser. (Nobel winning scientist)

What do you guys think?
29-07-2023 18:10
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Telephones are pretty close to going full mobile, not a stretch to start shutting down landline service in many areas. The many miles of copper wire is easy to remove an recycle. Copper isn't the only conductor, or even the best. It's standard, because it's plentiful, cheap, and easy to work. There was never a need to explore other options. We've had better, cheaper options for decades. It's just the cost of changing over, and getting everyone to agree on which to use. Of course the copper industry will resist, since they make good profit. It's about raking in profits, with spending as little of your own money.

The IPCC is a marketing agency. They produce nothing but hype and hysteria. They were formed to sell an agenda. They create interesting headlines to stir controversy and fear. Media loves this stuff, as it grabs attentions, and boosts their profits. Outrage calls for governmental action, which is pointless, wasteful spending. Which is free-money to select groups. Placated voters, are loyal voters, as are those receiving free-money. You can get free-money to install solar panels on your roof, virtue-signalling that you 'care', and the expectations of the power company sending you a big check every month, for you solar production. Some see a reduction in the bill, but few actually profit. Their savings, might cover their portion of the installation in 10-15 years... The cheapest roof-top solar option most homeowners jumped on was grid-tie, where everything produced, goes directly to the grid. But, for those who mainly use electricity at night, they pay peak rates, when their panels aren't producing. The daylight rates are cheaper, and what's paid for solar... To get the most value, a storage system needs to be added. Battery banks... Lithium-ION batteries, same as in EVs, and most everything else these days. Lead/acid isn't going away, just not ideal for in-home use. Even people without roof-top solar are buying these battery storage units, as backup, and as a way to offset peak rate charges. It's energy storage that's going to kill the agenda.
29-07-2023 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
sceptic777 wrote:
I would like to voice my skepticism to the Alternative Energy Policy. I am a retired Engineer and have spent much time studying the science behind the changes that are proposed to go to Net Zero. I have listened to many other engineers and scientists in the field in order to bolster my knowledge on the subject. Because of this, I believe the following:

1) There is no real crisis and CO2 is not a primary driver of the changes in our climate. The changes have been over exaggerated by our media;not unusual! The reason why we don't hear the other side of the debate is because the other voices of reason have been censored; the science is certainly not settled.

2) In any case, Net Zero is impossible with the proposed Wind Turbines, Solar Panels and Battery technology we are preparing to implement.

3) According to a Professor of metallurgy from Finland, there are not enough metals that we can extract in time to build the infrastructure and EV's that would be needed to get to the Net Zero Target. With the present rate of metals extraction we would need to open up new mines all over the world and would need 90 plus years to produce the Copper, 400 years to produce the Nickel, etc, etc.

4) It has been calculated that if the USA was to go 100% renewable energy, they would need to cover 30% of the entire area of their country in Wind Turbines, Solar panels and Battery banks. This is ridiculous!

5) The move to Renewable Energy creates almost as many problems as it purports to solve. As of the present time, solar panels, wind turbine blades, solar panels and Lithium batteries are either hard and expensive to recycle or impossible to recycle. Wind turbines have only been with us for a relatively short time and there already are huge graveyards of used blades littering the landscape, (mostly out of view at the moment). Some engineers have stated that the Turbines produce very little energy in their short 15 years of life.

6) Wind Turbines have been estimated to kill well over 1 million birds each year in the US by 2030. Some of these are protected species such as eagles and hawks. Often, large areas of land have to be cleared for wind farms. This is looking less ecological all the time.

6) Engineers have said that the recent acceleration of power prices is due to this 'panicked' shift to new technologies. People have had much trouble already, in meeting their power bills and it appears like this is not the end. Alternative energy is not ready to tackle a problem that appears not to exist and our people on lower incomes will pay the price for this ill-calculated rush for change.

In case there is doubt about some of the scientists that oppose this climate scaremongering, I have listed their names below:

Scientists that are Anthropogenic climate change deniers. (40 so far)
*********************************************************************
William Kinninmont, Dr. David Bellamy, Prof Ian Clark, Bob Carter, David Evans, Garth Paltrigde, Joanne Nova, David Archibald, & Jennifer Marohasy, Dr Chris Landsea, Marc Morano, Dan Pena, Prof Ian Plimer (geologist),Prof. Piers Corbyn, Prof. Richard Lindzen(MIT Atmospheric scientist), Murray Salby, Dr Patrick
Michaels, Prof William Happer. Nils-Axel Morner (States sea level is NOT rising), Jay Lehr, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Peter Ridd(GB Reef not dying)
Dr Willie Soon, Dr Elliot Bloom, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr. Judith Curry, Henrik Svensmark, Richard Tol, Freeman Dyson. Prof. Tom Harris. Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Tim Lenton.
Ivar Giaever(Nobel Laureate), Gregory Whitehouse, Anton Horvath, Boris Molnar(top-level oceanographer and meteorologist), Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, Mallen Baker (Broadcaster), Greg Flato(Climate scientist), Dr John Christy (Climate Scientist), Michael Shellenberger, Gregg Braden (geologist), Steve Milloy (Lawyer/lobbyist, Started junkscience.com), Dr Patrick Moore (Started Green peace), David Dilley (Climatologist), Patrick Michaels (Cato Institute), Gregory Whitestone(CO2 Coalition), James Taylor, Pres. of Heartland Institute) Dr John Clauser. (Nobel winning scientist)

What do you guys think?


Climate cannot change. That's the first error you made.

CO2 has ZERO capability to warm the Earth. That's the 2nd error you made.

Science is NEVER 'settled'. That's the 3rd error you made. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

You failed to account for resources to not only manufacture everything, but also to get them installed and to maintain them. You also failed to account for the cost of gathering all that energy from such widely distributed 'piddle power' sources.

Solar power is by far the most expensive method of generating electrical power. Wind generators are the 2nd most expensive.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are MUCH cheaper, AND they can be constructed as on demand plants (while solar and wind cannot).


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2023 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22173)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Telephones are pretty close to going full mobile, not a stretch to start shutting down landline service in many areas. The many miles of copper wire is easy to remove an recycle. Copper isn't the only conductor, or even the best. It's standard, because it's plentiful, cheap, and easy to work. There was never a need to explore other options. We've had better, cheaper options for decades. It's just the cost of changing over, and getting everyone to agree on which to use. Of course the copper industry will resist, since they make good profit. It's about raking in profits, with spending as little of your own money.

The IPCC is a marketing agency. They produce nothing but hype and hysteria. They were formed to sell an agenda. They create interesting headlines to stir controversy and fear. Media loves this stuff, as it grabs attentions, and boosts their profits. Outrage calls for governmental action, which is pointless, wasteful spending. Which is free-money to select groups. Placated voters, are loyal voters, as are those receiving free-money. You can get free-money to install solar panels on your roof, virtue-signalling that you 'care', and the expectations of the power company sending you a big check every month, for you solar production. Some see a reduction in the bill, but few actually profit. Their savings, might cover their portion of the installation in 10-15 years... The cheapest roof-top solar option most homeowners jumped on was grid-tie, where everything produced, goes directly to the grid. But, for those who mainly use electricity at night, they pay peak rates, when their panels aren't producing. The daylight rates are cheaper, and what's paid for solar... To get the most value, a storage system needs to be added. Battery banks... Lithium-ION batteries, same as in EVs, and most everything else these days. Lead/acid isn't going away, just not ideal for in-home use. Even people without roof-top solar are buying these battery storage units, as backup, and as a way to offset peak rate charges. It's energy storage that's going to kill the agenda.

Aluminum alloy is most often used in transmission and distribution lines. Copper is too heavy.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 29-07-2023 20:04




Join the debate THIS MONTH'S WORLD'S LARGEST WIND TURBINE GOES OPERATIONAL:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Using Wind Turbines is Mass Murder301-02-2024 03:00
Offshore wind projects face economic storm. Cancellations jeopardize Biden clean energy goals705-11-2023 20:41
BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man003-03-2023 15:29
Patened enclosed vertical axis wind turbine. Seeking business partner.17229-12-2022 20:50
At least 269 teachers arrested on child sex crimes in first 9 months of this year.014-10-2022 21:20
▲ 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