3 ms·
The article says: That's 45 percent more than the company's MySE 11.0-203, from just a 19 percent increase in diameter. So I think that their point is that th
by unwind 5y ago
The article says:
That's 45 percent more than the company's MySE 11.0-203, from just a 19 percent increase in diameter.
So I think that their point is that the energy output goes up more (45%) than the diameter (19%), i.e. it's not linear, which is what "proportionality" [1] seems to mean.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
- bathMarm0t 5y ago1.2 ** 2 == 1.44. So... ? Power is linear wrt area of the disk?
- vanderZwan 5y agoWell, the wind energy captured depends on the surface area covered by the blades, not the diameter. So let's first check for that: 1.19 * 1.19 = 1.4161 That's still 4% unaccounted for, so there are some efficiency gains there. The question then becomes how building materials and energy required to build one of these scales with size. If that is linearly with blade diameter/turbine height, then yes, the efficiency increases quickly the larger you build them.
- MagnumOpus 5y agoThe remaining 4% are likely due to the higher and steadier winds at the higher altitude. And the cost savings are likely less about building materials which likely scale at more than quadratic pace with height, but about labour and maintenance. Each trip out to an offshore base is costly, fewer trips made both for building and for maintenance saves a lot of money.
- endymi0n 5y agowhich to be honest is less of a testament to increased efficiency and more of a mathematical effect of circle area growing to the square of the diameter. The other main reason to get bigger that‘s not even discussed is increased capacity factor. That doesn‘t have to do with efficiency, but with effectiveness, as the turbine will simply run more days of the year.