8 ms·

For scale, you only need 75 of these 16MW turbines to replace one nuclear power plant (1200MW). Crazy. EDIT: Taking operational capacity (26% for wind, 86% for

by akie 5y ago

For scale, you only need 75 of these 16MW turbines to replace one nuclear power plant (1200MW). Crazy. EDIT: Taking operational capacity (26% for wind, 86% for nuclear) into account, you arrive at about 250 to replace one nuclear plant. Still insane. Source: https://qr.ae/pGWlu4 https://qr.ae/pGWlu4

Tade0 5y ago
Such large wind turbines break the 50% capacity threshold: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind... Mostly because at such heights wind is generally higher and more consistent.
- akie 5y ago
  So only 125 of these mega turbines to replace one nuclear power plant? Amazing. France produces 75% of their electricity with 56 nuclear power plants, which - if the above is broadly correct - you would be able to replace with 7000 of these wind mills. That's a lot, but on the other hand, Germany has already installed 20k wind turbines so far, so it seems within reach. Obviously you still need to think about matching supply and demand, but I'm surprised by how feasible this appears.
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    The 20k in Germany are much much smaller. The big ones require more space and can be built in less places due to how gigantic they are. On the other hand, placing them at sea is great for having more wind. And the main objection to sea based wind energy so far is the cost of construction which with a smaller number of them could decrease.
    - choeger 5y ago
      Not that much smaller, actually. A typical run-of-the-mill turbine will have a capacity of 2.5MW. You can easily get up to 5MW onshore (but that's often constrained by proximity to villages or towns - renewable energy does not happen in or close to cities).
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Ah yes, a wind turbine in germany needs to be much further away from a village(1000m), than a coal plant with 700m or a garbage dump with 500m. Sadly, not everything is so green here, like it may sound.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      Wouldn't the sea air be terrible for corrosion too?
  - guerby 5y ago
    In France 2019 nuclear capacity factor was 68.7% with 379.5 TWh produced out of 63.1 GW installed capacity.
    - Retric 5y ago
      If you only include domestic use it was even lower, they ended up exporting a lot of nuclear power for less than it cost to produce.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    I'm not sure you need to do that, but on the other hand - how is the lifespan of France's nuclear fleet? I heard there were crack issues?
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      The nuclear situation is terrible, whether in USA or France (don't know about other countries). There's plenty of unplanned incidents happening all the time, plenty of scandals around waste management and safety concerns. They're supposed to prove the supremacy of french engineering companies with the new EPR design, however all it's shown so far is the many inadequacies of any institution we've known so far to respect basic security/operating principles. There are many, many EPR-related scandals to explore if you speak french, and even more scandals relative to french engineering companies if you're curious like Lafarge, Areva, Bouygues..
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      All reactors have neutron embrittlement problems. Operators just hope it doesn't get as bad as the case in England, where they could barely move certain metal containers without them shattering.
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    125 would be sufficient to replace one 1200MW reactor. A nuclear power plant usually consists of more than a single reactor. In addition to electricity, nuclear power plants also produce a lot of heat, which can be used for district heating purposes (called co-generation), as is done frequently in northern and eastern Europe. Heating is the dominant component of the final energy consumption, accounting for close to half of all energy use. This is apparent when driving around in an electric car - keeping the cabin warm easily accounts for ~30% of the consumption. Wind turbines obviously produce no surplus heat to extract
    - lizknope 5y ago
      In the winter that is true but in the summer some of them have had to limit production because the water to cool the plant is too hot. https://www.climateforesight.eu/energy/nuclear-power-feeling-the-heat/ https://www.climateforesight.eu/energy/nuclear-power-feeling... https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-trouble-for-nuclear-power-plants https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-...
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        There was a nuclear power station that shutdown in Texas this past winter after its cooling system malfunctioned in the extreme (for Texas) cold weather. Thermal power stations face a panoply of potential malfunctions, regardless of their heat source. They are very, very complex.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > nuclear power plants also produce a lot of heat, which can be used for district heating purposes Is that the case though? To my knowledge nuclear reactor heat is only used to produce electricity and kill biodiversity in rivers so far. Also, nuclear reactors are built far away from populous area for obvious security concerns. Are there adequate mechanisms for transporting heat over long distances? That's already a problem for electricity, which incurs huge losses (heat dissipation).
      - 5y ago
- throw0101a 5y ago
  So where do you get power during the 50% of the time when there is no wind? What is the other generating infrastructure that needs to be built out for 100% coverage? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factors_by_energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto... I have no major problem with more renewables per se, but unless you're in the Orkneys or a dessert/Mediterranean climate, it appears to me that there are always times when they're not available and so you have build out something as a back-up. As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we have nuclear plants providing >10,0000 MW continuously (click "Supply"): * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data Hydro and gas area scaled up as needed (especially over the last few days with >30C weather), and wind is very "random". (We have only a token amount of solar.)
  - shafyy 5y ago
    The obvious answer is to store the surplus energy in batteries and use it later. And yes, it won't be long until we have enough batteries at low enough cost to make this feasible.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      You might want to add, that for stationary batteries, where size does not matter so much, you do not need fancy lithium, cobalt or nickel. Plain iron, natrium and copper is enough to build as much storage as you want and can.
    - Thaxll 5y ago
      "it won't be long until we have enough batteries at low enough cost to make this feasible" Right now it's not possible, and there is no solution in sight. Edit: Why I'm being downvoted, we can't store energy at scale for now, end of the story.
      - eldaisfish 5y ago
        you are being downvoted - as am i - for raising valid questions about the blind belief that renewable energy is the sole, viable replacement for our current generation mix. Goes to show that many here do not fully understand the challenges of running an electric grid and also that far too many have bought into the propaganda of wind, solar and battery storage being the sole path forward.
- patentatt 5y ago
  I wonder how much of the efficiency is due to the height/altitude and how much is due to blade surface area. Does it make sense to build super tall towers to put medium sized wind turbines up higher? Interesting idea
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    If you buold the tower, you might as well put the blades on it
dmitriid 5y ago
Even at "only" 75 that's a lot of turbines. At 250 you'll need the size of a small country to build them: https://energyfollower.com/wind-turbine-spacing/ https://energyfollower.com/wind-turbine-spacing/ and https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-12304634.html https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-1230463...
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Interesting links! Spacing and layout are obviously more dimensions that can be optimized. The blades in the original article are 118m long so they would have a diameter of 236m, and according to your first link the "usual" spacing is 7x the diameter so they'd need to be at least 1.6km apart?
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    Looks like it. From what I've seen in various installations the turbines stand really far apart.
- N1H1L 5y ago
  For 250 turbines, based on your own links we need 444 sq km. That's like half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. So based on offshore capacity factors, an area of NYC will generate 500160.5 = 4000MW continuous power. NY state consumes approximately 200 TWh of power annually. Thus, this setup itself will contribute to 1/6th of the whole state's power consumption.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. I exaggerated of course [1]. But you probably don't realize how huge half of New York city, or 444 sq. km is. And the area is likely to larger because you will need additional infrastructure to handle all this and maintain the generators. [1] There are 43 countries smaller than that: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than+440+sq+km https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than...

by akie 5y ago

Tade0 5y ago

Such large wind turbines break the 50% capacity threshold: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind... Mostly because at such heights wind is generally higher and more consistent.

akie 5y ago
So only 125 of these mega turbines to replace one nuclear power plant? Amazing. France produces 75% of their electricity with 56 nuclear power plants, which - if the above is broadly correct - you would be able to replace with 7000 of these wind mills. That's a lot, but on the other hand, Germany has already installed 20k wind turbines so far, so it seems within reach. Obviously you still need to think about matching supply and demand, but I'm surprised by how feasible this appears.
- t0mas88 5y ago
  The 20k in Germany are much much smaller. The big ones require more space and can be built in less places due to how gigantic they are. On the other hand, placing them at sea is great for having more wind. And the main objection to sea based wind energy so far is the cost of construction which with a smaller number of them could decrease.
  - choeger 5y ago
    Not that much smaller, actually. A typical run-of-the-mill turbine will have a capacity of 2.5MW. You can easily get up to 5MW onshore (but that's often constrained by proximity to villages or towns - renewable energy does not happen in or close to cities).
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Ah yes, a wind turbine in germany needs to be much further away from a village(1000m), than a coal plant with 700m or a garbage dump with 500m. Sadly, not everything is so green here, like it may sound.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    Wouldn't the sea air be terrible for corrosion too?
- guerby 5y ago
  In France 2019 nuclear capacity factor was 68.7% with 379.5 TWh produced out of 63.1 GW installed capacity.
  - Retric 5y ago
    If you only include domestic use it was even lower, they ended up exporting a lot of nuclear power for less than it cost to produce.
- pjc50 5y ago
  I'm not sure you need to do that, but on the other hand - how is the lifespan of France's nuclear fleet? I heard there were crack issues?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    The nuclear situation is terrible, whether in USA or France (don't know about other countries). There's plenty of unplanned incidents happening all the time, plenty of scandals around waste management and safety concerns. They're supposed to prove the supremacy of french engineering companies with the new EPR design, however all it's shown so far is the many inadequacies of any institution we've known so far to respect basic security/operating principles. There are many, many EPR-related scandals to explore if you speak french, and even more scandals relative to french engineering companies if you're curious like Lafarge, Areva, Bouygues..
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    All reactors have neutron embrittlement problems. Operators just hope it doesn't get as bad as the case in England, where they could barely move certain metal containers without them shattering.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  125 would be sufficient to replace one 1200MW reactor. A nuclear power plant usually consists of more than a single reactor. In addition to electricity, nuclear power plants also produce a lot of heat, which can be used for district heating purposes (called co-generation), as is done frequently in northern and eastern Europe. Heating is the dominant component of the final energy consumption, accounting for close to half of all energy use. This is apparent when driving around in an electric car - keeping the cabin warm easily accounts for ~30% of the consumption. Wind turbines obviously produce no surplus heat to extract
  - lizknope 5y ago
    In the winter that is true but in the summer some of them have had to limit production because the water to cool the plant is too hot. https://www.climateforesight.eu/energy/nuclear-power-feeling-the-heat/ https://www.climateforesight.eu/energy/nuclear-power-feeling... https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-trouble-for-nuclear-power-plants https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632988813/hot-weather-spells-...
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      There was a nuclear power station that shutdown in Texas this past winter after its cooling system malfunctioned in the extreme (for Texas) cold weather. Thermal power stations face a panoply of potential malfunctions, regardless of their heat source. They are very, very complex.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > nuclear power plants also produce a lot of heat, which can be used for district heating purposes Is that the case though? To my knowledge nuclear reactor heat is only used to produce electricity and kill biodiversity in rivers so far. Also, nuclear reactors are built far away from populous area for obvious security concerns. Are there adequate mechanisms for transporting heat over long distances? That's already a problem for electricity, which incurs huge losses (heat dissipation).
    - 5y ago
throw0101a 5y ago
So where do you get power during the 50% of the time when there is no wind? What is the other generating infrastructure that needs to be built out for 100% coverage? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factors_by_energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto... I have no major problem with more renewables per se, but unless you're in the Orkneys or a dessert/Mediterranean climate, it appears to me that there are always times when they're not available and so you have build out something as a back-up. As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, we have nuclear plants providing >10,0000 MW continuously (click "Supply"): * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data Hydro and gas area scaled up as needed (especially over the last few days with >30C weather), and wind is very "random". (We have only a token amount of solar.)
- shafyy 5y ago
  The obvious answer is to store the surplus energy in batteries and use it later. And yes, it won't be long until we have enough batteries at low enough cost to make this feasible.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    You might want to add, that for stationary batteries, where size does not matter so much, you do not need fancy lithium, cobalt or nickel. Plain iron, natrium and copper is enough to build as much storage as you want and can.
  - Thaxll 5y ago
    "it won't be long until we have enough batteries at low enough cost to make this feasible" Right now it's not possible, and there is no solution in sight. Edit: Why I'm being downvoted, we can't store energy at scale for now, end of the story.
    - eldaisfish 5y ago
      you are being downvoted - as am i - for raising valid questions about the blind belief that renewable energy is the sole, viable replacement for our current generation mix. Goes to show that many here do not fully understand the challenges of running an electric grid and also that far too many have bought into the propaganda of wind, solar and battery storage being the sole path forward.
patentatt 5y ago
I wonder how much of the efficiency is due to the height/altitude and how much is due to blade surface area. Does it make sense to build super tall towers to put medium sized wind turbines up higher? Interesting idea
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  If you buold the tower, you might as well put the blades on it

dmitriid 5y ago

Even at "only" 75 that's a lot of turbines. At 250 you'll need the size of a small country to build them: https://energyfollower.com/wind-turbine-spacing/ https://energyfollower.com/wind-turbine-spacing/ and https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-12304634.html https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-1230463...

monkeybutton 5y ago
Interesting links! Spacing and layout are obviously more dimensions that can be optimized. The blades in the original article are 118m long so they would have a diameter of 236m, and according to your first link the "usual" spacing is 7x the diameter so they'd need to be at least 1.6km apart?
- dmitriid 5y ago
  Looks like it. From what I've seen in various installations the turbines stand really far apart.
N1H1L 5y ago
For 250 turbines, based on your own links we need 444 sq km. That's like half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. So based on offshore capacity factors, an area of NYC will generate 500160.5 = 4000MW continuous power. NY state consumes approximately 200 TWh of power annually. Thus, this setup itself will contribute to 1/6th of the whole state's power consumption.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > half the area of the whole of New York City. Not a small country. I exaggerated of course [1]. But you probably don't realize how huge half of New York city, or 444 sq. km is. And the area is likely to larger because you will need additional infrastructure to handle all this and maintain the generators. [1] There are 43 countries smaller than that: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than+440+sq+km https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=countries+smaller+than...