Climate and Weather

watfly said:
You're out of your league here, you have no clue. I was the liquidating Trustee for the worlds largest windpower company, Kenetech, prior to it filing BK. The stress on the gearboxes when you have blades as big as 30m is insane. They require a lot of lube and often fail because of the gear box. Next time you drive past a wind plant notice the dark staining on the nacelle and sometimes down the side of the tower. Thats not honey coming out, thats gear oil. Also notice how many windmills are non-operational. More windpower projects have failed then have been successful.
Click to expand...

I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.

We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.

But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?

A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov www.eia.gov

So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.

A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)

www.savantlab.com

Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs

Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
www.savantlab.com www.savantlab.com

So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.

In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.

You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
 
espola said:
I was under the impression that the towers were made out of steel.
Click to expand...
Same point. Coal used to make the coke to make the steel, instead of natural gas to make the electricity to smelt the aluminum. No free lunch, either way.

There is always a cost, and you have to ask which price is lower. You can't simply say "Look, dead birdie. Must be bad."

This is true whether the bird was killed by a windmill or an oil spill.
 
dad4 said:
I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.

We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.

But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?

A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov www.eia.gov

So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.

A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)

www.savantlab.com

Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs

Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
www.savantlab.com www.savantlab.com

So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.

In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.

You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
Click to expand...
Strawman, because I'm not making the case for an oil plant. My only point was that wind turbines use a lot of petroleum which you scoffed at until you did a Google search and realized they use at least 700 gallons of oil per turbine a year. Combine that with the fact that turbines are horribly inefficient and breakdown constantly you get an unreliable, and not that environmentally sound energy source.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
As a kid in the 60’s-70’s I hated going north of Camp Pendleton because the smog made my eyes burn. And yeah I’m saying the indigenous peoples and some of the down to basics groups like the Amish are the only ones that truly deserve a heaven. The rest of us integrated into the post Industrial Revolution heathens deserve what we get. It’s not all our fault but it’s certainly not true progress.
Click to expand...
In my Navy days, I often drove between San Diego and the Pt. Mugu NAS/Oxnard area. Driving through LA usually gave me a headache, but not anymore. I lived in California for almost a year (1970) before I realized you could see mountains from downtown LA when traveling through on a day after a good rainstorm had cleared the air.
 
dad4 said:
I might be out of my league, if there weren't so many orders of magnitude in my favor.

We're comparing oil used for lubrication to oil used as fuel.

But, if you insist, let's compare. How many barrels of oil per megawatt hour?

A standard oil plant uses about 80 gallons of petroleum per MWH.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov www.eia.gov

So, to make 6,000 MWH, you need about 480,000 gallons of petroleum.

A 2.5 to 3 MW turbine will make about 6000 MWH in a year. It will also need about a thousand gallons of lubricant. (700 gallons every 9-16 months)

www.savantlab.com

Going Green - Wind Turbines & Lubricant Testing - Savant Labs

Wind energy continues to grow in importance in the US and around the world. With about 380 billion kilowatt-hours produced in the US in 2021, it accounted for
www.savantlab.com www.savantlab.com

So, per unit of production, the fossil plant is using about 500X as much petroleum.

In other words, windmill lubricant is a relatively small factor. Not zero. But smaller than the environmental costs normally involved in making that much power.

You should have gone for concrete. That 2.5 MW turbine has a 800 ton concrete base. At 900 kg CO2 per ton, that's 720 tons of CO2- the same as is released from burning 80,000 gallons of fuel oil. It'll take you 80 years to get a number that big from lubricants.
Click to expand...
There is often a solution --

Climate | Bouygues Construction

Bouygues Construction aims to achieve a 30% reduction in its CO2 emissions by 2030. Responsible and committed to the environment, the group is leading the way in the field of sustainable construction, with innovative solutions to design, implement and operate projects across all fields of...
www.bouygues-construction.com www.bouygues-construction.com
 
espola said:
There is often a solution --

Climate | Bouygues Construction

Bouygues Construction aims to achieve a 30% reduction in its CO2 emissions by 2030. Responsible and committed to the environment, the group is leading the way in the field of sustainable construction, with innovative solutions to design, implement and operate projects across all fields of...
www.bouygues-construction.com www.bouygues-construction.com
Click to expand...
Virtue signaling is not a solution.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
As a kid in the 60’s-70’s I hated going north of Camp Pendleton because the smog made my eyes burn. And yeah I’m saying the indigenous peoples and some of the down to basics groups like the Amish are the only ones that truly deserve a heaven. The rest of us integrated into the post Industrial Revolution heathens deserve what we get. It’s not all our fault but it’s certainly not true progress.
Click to expand...
You and your alter ego need massive amounts of intense psychotherapy.
 
For those interested in being educated about climate and energy, I highly recommend two substacks. The Honest Broker (Roger Pielke). He recently retired from the University of Colorado at Boulder and will continue writing and doing research on his own supported by his substack. His take on wind energy is below.

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Wind Dreams

Why wind power will always be niche
rogerpielkejr.substack.com rogerpielkejr.substack.com

The other is Doomberg. Again, his posts are data-supported and relevant to the latest events. You can get a preview of his articles for free. The previews are informative even without the full post. To get the full posts requires a paid subscription.

newsletter.doomberg.com

Doomberg | Substack

Energy, finance, and the economy at-large | Doomberg readers are better informed and smartly entertained | Enter your email address below to receive free previews | Bonus access to 5 of our top articles is included in the Welcome email! Click to read Doomberg, a Substack publication with...
newsletter.doomberg.com newsletter.doomberg.com
 
watfly said:
Strawman, because I'm not making the case for an oil plant. My only point was that wind turbines use a lot of petroleum which you scoffed at until you did a Google search and realized they use at least 700 gallons of oil per turbine a year. Combine that with the fact that turbines are horribly inefficient and breakdown constantly you get an unreliable, and not that environmentally sound energy source.
Click to expand...
Who said 700 gallons per year is significant?

In the context of "things that make megawatts", 700 gallons is rather small. It's like complaining about the number of rolls of toilet paper needed to run a nuclear power plant. Yes, there are issues to discuss, but that isn't one of them.
 
I just love it when Dad, espola and Husker Du show up on the same day. espola, I have to give you credit being able to play all 3 in 1. Can I get you three to commit to a debate on Sunday about any subject you want. Anytime and anyplace......
 
dad4 said:
Who said 700 gallons per year is significant?

In the context of "things that make megawatts", 700 gallons is rather small. It's like complaining about the number of rolls of toilet paper needed to run a nuclear power plant. Yes, there are issues to discuss, but that isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Maybe a picture would help. Here is your clean energy.Publication2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top