Let's waste some more taxpayer money

[Gilligan]

In theory wind turbines would average out for which ones had wind and which ones didnt and the output could remain somewhat constant but isn't a guarantee.

Last December, as we were preparing a new windfarm service vessel for service, the operating company was dealing with a typical windfarm disaster. A sustained period of bad weather prevented access to the turbines. After about 30 days or so of this, 102 of 130 turbines had tripped off line, most for very minor issues but issues that still required human intervention to correct or reset. So the result...an entire month of sustained wind that should have/ would have produced power at the design peak of 110% maximum rated capacity....delivered squat.

 

[tommyjo]

I am not following you in terms of monopoly (how many electricity-producing companies and co-ops, etc., do you think are out there?) or the artificial costs of nuclear. While nuclear is regulated well beyond anything else (including coal), I know of no artificial costs.

Nuclear was exploding again just a few years ago, with almost everyone involved in nuclear power plants planning on building new ones. Then, the US started sucking natural gas out of the ground like it was going out of style. Natural gas plants are cheap to build, cheap to operate, and now VERY cheap to fuel. They're far more efficient and "cleaner" than coal, so a new gas plant can be thrown up cheaply and quickly as compared to a nuke plant. Thus, almost all the plans for new nuclear plants were scrapped.

Nuclear is the only logical choice going forward in terms of scale and environmental concerns, but gas is cheap. That's capitalism, and it works. When wind can generate reliably and on a scale that people need, it will overtake both gas and nuclear. That day, you will see pigs flying on their own wings, honest politicians, and irrefutable proof with respect to the existence of the Free-Methodist version of God that no one will ever be able to question.

You think natural gas took nuclear "off line"???

Come on...think...Fukishima (spelling may be wrong)...killed a nascent industry just like Three Mile Island did in 1979.

 

[Gilligan]

You think natural gas took nuclear "off line"???

Come on...think...Fukishima (spelling may be wrong)...killed a nascent industry just like Three Mile Island did in 1979.

You have not one clue. Give it up, make me that sammich, and come back to bed.

 

[tommyjo]

Viable, in this case, means several things.

Even remotely capable of producing a sufficient amount of reliable power = viable.

Producing power at a levelized cost that is same as, or lower than, the current cost of power produced from coal and natural gas = viable.

Oye...nice mentality...using you typically shortsighted viewpoint...nothing would ever change...no technology would ever be developed...because no new technology is cheaper to research and design...no new drugs would be developed either...you'd still be living pre-stone age...as every new tech has a higher initial cost than the current tech.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Last December, as we were preparing a new windfarm service vessel for service, the operating company was dealing with a typical windfarm disaster. A sustained period of bad weather prevented access to the turbines. After about 30 days or so of this, 102 of 130 turbines had tripped off line, most for very minor issues but issues that still required human intervention to correct or reset. So the result...an entire month of sustained wind that should have/ would have produced power at the design peak of 110% maximum rated capacity....delivered squat.

Curious, was the issues that tripped them offline weather related?

Seeing some on mountain ridges I have to wonder if those are even harder to access than the ones out in the water.

I have seen some in western MD that I wondered how in the hell they got built where they are, ones in California are on even higher ridge lines.

 

[Gilligan]

Oye...nice mentality...using you typically shortsighted viewpoint...nothing would ever change...no technology would ever be developed...because no new technology is cheaper to research and design...no new drugs would be developed either...you'd still be living pre-stone age...as every new tech has a higher initial cost than the current tech.

And you are are posting stoned again. Tsk tsk tsk....What did I tell you about that??

 

[Gilligan]

Curious, was the issues that tripped them offline weather related?

.

The trips happen often..nothing weather related at all. The point is that the turbines tripped and could not be put back on line because access was restricted due to weather.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

The trips happen often..nothing weather related at all. The point is that the turbines tripped and could not be put back on line because access was restricted due to weather.

Understand that, just curious what trips them. Wondering if they have health monitoring like helicopter gearboxes that detect debris etc.

 

[Gilligan]

Understand that, just curious what trips them. Wondering if they have health monitoring like helicopter gearboxes that detect debris etc.

Very much so. They are very complex machines with a lot of automation and monitoring equipment. Many so-called "fault" conditions can/do occur that require human intervention to verify/fix/reset. In the vast majority of them, the condition is a relatively minor one....but when access is impossible, it matters not the degree of the problem. Turbine down is a turbine down.

 

[SamSpade]

Why not? It's not like it's real money..or their money...






http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/senate-votes-restore-taxpayer-subsidies-windmills/

Arriving a little late to the discussion, but....

There are bureaucrats who observe a phenomenon in the business world that, a technology can exist for years - even be vastly undeveloped - but once it "catches on" it can burst onto the scene and be a game changer.

The entire "killer app" concept with computers is a good comparison. No one really saw a pressing need for personal computers - until the first "killer app" - Visicalc. No one saw the need for a GUI platform, such as MacIntosh - until desktop publishing. Somewhere people noticed that word processing could replace typewriters. And so forth.

There are people who THINK that if they just prime the pump - help the technology - it will accelerate its adoption. But it usually doesn't work that way. Now, if the government said "hey - whoever comes up with 'this' technology will have exclusive rights over its use for, say, twenty years" - THEN people will scramble to do it. What happens when government subsidizes stuff to initiate some kind of momentous change is, people just take the money and plod along because there's no incentive to beat your opposition.

Romney observed this last time he ran for President - what's the point of a competing company to try to develop something, if their competitor is being backed by the government? It *DISCOURAGES* development. As people observed, but opponents misunderstood - the government is "picking winners". It has the result of pushing DOWN innovation. And it's because the people in charge just don't think like entrepreneurs. It's almost like cargo cult science - imitating the appearance of creating innovation, but not understanding what drives it.

 

[This_person]

You think natural gas took nuclear "off line"???

Come on...think...Fukishima (spelling may be wrong)...killed a nascent industry just like Three Mile Island did in 1979.

Not so much. Fukishima added regulation for beyond-design-basis scenarios, but ultimately the majority of the problems with Fukishima were already considered and handled in US plants. There were regulations that were added for pumps to cool Spent Fuel Pools and such that did not require the diesels or the grid to operate, but it was a huge media event, not nearly the industry event that TMI or Chernobyl were. Again, TMI proved the design features of US plants work to protect the public, and Chernobyl proved not having those design features like we do is a problem.

Nuclear is not nearly a nascent industry. Not even close. The first nuke plants were powering cities in the 1950's (see http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr and https://www.asme.org/about-asme/who...ndmarks/47-shippingport-nuclear-power-station). By the time TMI rolled around, nuclear was a pretty large industry and growing. TMI, due to the total ineptitude of the public affairs office of the utility, cost the industry a lot of ground. But, we're building new plants again. More would be built if it were just economically feasible. Natural gas is the problem, not Fukishima.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not so much. Fukishima added regulation for beyond-design-basis scenarios, but ultimately the majority of the problems with Fukishima were already considered and handled in US plants. There were regulations that were added for pumps to cool Spent Fuel Pools and such that did not require the diesels or the grid to operate, but it was a huge media event, not nearly the industry event that TMI or Chernobyl were. Again, TMI proved the design features of US plants work to protect the public, and Chernobyl proved not having those design features like we do is a problem.

Nuclear is not nearly a nascent industry. Not even close. The first nuke plants were powering cities in the 1950's (see http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr and https://www.asme.org/about-asme/who...ndmarks/47-shippingport-nuclear-power-station). By the time TMI rolled around, nuclear was a pretty large industry and growing. TMI, due to the total ineptitude of the public affairs office of the utility, cost the industry a lot of ground. But, we're building new plants again. More would be built if it were just economically feasible. Natural gas is the problem, not Fukishima.

I thought Fuk put their generators in the basement, against design plans? And that the tidal wave wiped them out? Thus, had they been on the roof, they'd have worked and there'd have been no problem?

 

[This_person]

I thought Fuk put their generators in the basement, against design plans? And that the tidal wave wiped them out? Thus, had they been on the roof, they'd have worked and there'd have been no problem?

I am now out of the nuke business, but I was in it when it happened. As I recall, the gist of what you're saying is correct, but in the US nuke industry areas that are possible to be flooded are in water-tight compartments like on a ship (if they have safety-related systems in them). But, that wasn't fully the issue, which is why portable pumps and water supplies for filling Spent Fuel Pools (and cooling them) needed to be generated and implemented.

In the US, even areas that are highly unlikely to flood have flood plans. On the Great Lakes, the nukes have to meet a seiche larger than has ever been postulated for the given lake (or whatever). Their flood plans have to include the potential for such a seiche. This is what I mean when I say nukes are highly over-regulated. North Anna, for example, was hit by that earthquake that was technically below design margin, but caused movement of safety-related components that were beyond design margin. The plant was down for months with extensive hand-over-hand inspections of all piping, non-destructive testing of welds and such, and all kinds of reviews by every level of national lab and regulator. The result? Good to go, no worries. Thank you, ADM Rickover, for creating a culture that puts a 454 cu in engine in a Chevette. Without that extensive design margin, things could have happened, and they don't.

TMI is a testament to that. The operators bypassed safety systems and, truthfully, inadvertently did everything in the worst possible way to create the meltdown. Had they done nothing at all the plant would be operating today, like its neighbors. Even with that action, essentially no danger exists or ever did to the public. Had their public affairs office reported it that way, nuclear would never have floundered for those decades. TMI proved that the design safety systems work even in the event of malicious (albeit inadvertently) actions by operators. No one is in danger, or will be in our lifetimes.