Printable View
Wind and solar farms are vastly cheaper to build than coal or gas fired power plants! Although that was not the case in the 1980s. Or even twenty years ago. And there is no indication that the decrease in cost has stopped.
Further, the advantage of these is that it is financially viable to make these on a much smaller scale than a coal fired power plant - and increase size later.
Plus wind and solar plants are much cheaper to operate because there is no need to mine, transport and burn coal or gas.
Yes there is… to build them in the first place [emoji41]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Replacement lifetime is quite short for the blades too.
Our local skyline now looks appalling, huge fans everywhere just pollute the land as far as the eye can see.
We’re killing off one problem and introducing 5 others.
Absolutely! The mongrel things should ALL be installed offshore out of sight!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Wind turbine blades can’t be recycled, so they’re piling up in landfills
Wind turbine blades are piling up in landfills - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan they can’t just be hauled away.
First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.
Turbine blades can last up to 20 years, but many are taken down after just 10 so they can be replaced with bigger and more powerful designs. Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF
Wind turbine technology has come on massively in the last 10 years. Older towers are being pulled down and replaced with newer more efficient versions. This is the normal March of technology and is no different to many other technologies over the years. There is an early adopter cost which this reflects until the technology matures.
Just as there is no one source of power for current electricity generation there will in the future be a mix of sources of electricity generation in the future. It is not wind against solar or wave etc as sone would like you to think.
Rolls Royce is starting to market a nuclear power plant that is the size of a wheelie bin. It is powerful enough to run a small city. Build and installation is quick as it is built in a factory and just installed on site
Those windmills you saw in the USA were installed as the government offered significant subsidies to install them. They were installed for the subsidy and were never effective at producing electricity. Idea was Chuck enough cash at it and the technology will move forward quicker. Those after a quick buck were the winners society lost out
A exec at my mum and dads 60th suggested a load of good deals are coming our way to get rid of stuff other countries are about to refuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
No question improved technology makes the life span of older tech possibly a bit shorter. The warships we have last 20ish years at the most in general. Weapons systems last a lot less.
No question cost reductions are occurring in Solar, Wind has moved from Professor James Blyth 1887 ( not a typo really 1887) Follow up in 1888 was 12-kW turbine featured 144 blades made of cedar[biggrin] Link to some history
Math on wind turbines is pretty simple: Bigger is better. Old ones such as the Proffessor Blyth 1887 type also costed a lot more in real terms. A guy I was chatting with digging underground power as FIFO all over the world a few weeks ago mentions cable sizes he is laying is getting bigger every year and YEP he is returning to install bigger cabling at earlier sites.
I took my Disco to the 60th. A quick 700ish km round trip. I had to chuckle as in put the replacement batter in before I could leave[biggrin]
Henry Ford industry disruption? "In October 1908, he offered the Model T for $950. In the Model T's nineteen years of production, its price dipped as low as $280. Nearly 15,500,000 were sold in the United States alone."
Not the only change Mr Ford made "Ford was responsible for cutting the workday from nine hours to eight hours so that the factory could convert to a three-shift workday and operate 24 hours a day."
Fully appreciate some people drive a lot more than average. he average American uses their car only 4% percent of the time. The rest of the time it is parked somewhere. It is disingenuous to suggest 50% plus of drivers could not enjoy the silent speed of a non pollution spewing car.
The other EV at my place did the miles with ease yesterday and today. My cheapie MG ev is not a long range option and I needed the 7 seats in my Disco. [thumbsupbig]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Older wind and solar installations are not really stranded assets per se, because the point about a coal-fired power plant being built now is that long before it's repayment term has finished it won't be able to produce electricity at a competitive rate and will therefore have no way of repaying its debt. In contrast, an older solar farm or wind farm would cost nothing to run - hence, efficiency isn't really an issue - and its output is always saleable so the issue doesn't arise.
You must have have big wheelie bins in your area:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3toes
Small modular reactors – Rolls-Royce
• Be so compact (16 metres high and 4 metres in diameter) itcan be transported by truck, train or even barge.• Sit within a power station that would be roughly fiveand half times the size of the pitch at Wembley, which isjust one-tenth the size of a typical large-scale reactor site(40,000m2 vs 400,000m2).
But a very minor issue compared to the ash produced by a coal fired plant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Farang
I was intrigued by this - because I've been thinking of getting an Outback diesel - and I can't find anything on the web about the diesels being unreliable, other than the usual whinging about DPFs having to be cycled.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
The diesels are the volume seller in the UK and there was nothing from there about reliability problems in relation to the Outback or the Forester.