- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,043
- Reactions
- 12,609
So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.
So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.Has anyone wondered how much lubricating oil a windfarm needs?
A wind turbine can hold up to 1,400 liters of oil, hydraulic fluid, and lubricants. Wind turbines have many parts that require lubrication, including greases, gearbox fluids, and hydraulic oils.
That is a lot of oil that needs to be taken from the ground and converted to the correct lubricant type. And it needs to be replaced periodically.
Imagine one or more leaking into the ocean.
A wind turbine consumes how much hydraulic oil? For lubrication, each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil, which is not vegetable oil but a PAO synthetic oil based on crude 12,000 gallons. That oil must be replaced once a year.
https://react-alliance.squarespace.com/s/EC-How-Much-Oil-In-A-Wind-Turbine-Gearbox_-UtilitySmarts.pdf
react-alliance.squarespace.com
So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.
At the end of the day, the goal is to stop using fossil fuel and use clean energy.There are heaps of coal and gas deposits that are still untapped, I worked on an exploration drill rig for a while in central Qld, it's the other problem of displacing agriculture and ruining the land forever.
Wind farms are going up all around the world with no reported problems, although something could obviously go wrong, as it could with nuclear fuel being transported by road, rail or ship and the aftermath of an accident would be much more devastating than with oil.True, but we're talking about putting windfarms all over the country and in the ocean. Trucks and ships are going to have to travel all over the place to service those windfarms. And i have a concern about leakage into the ocean, beside he damage and destruction to the ocean floor putting in pilons and foundations, which conveniently can't be seen.
Existing power plant technology is built in one location, housed in a building with a concrete floor.
This is a map of current and under-construction wind farms. How many more to go up, and don't forget oceans.
View attachment 189415
That isn't exactly correct, wind turbines and steam turbines are very different, comparing the two would be difficult on most metrics.So what, every machine needs maintenance, steam turbines, gas turbines, wind turbines they all have their peculiarities. Saying wind turbines are worse than anything else is disingeuous.
The fact a steam turbine can be say 500MW, that would require approx 100 wind turbines running flat out to have the same output and those 100 would require maintenance and replacement so it is a difficult one to quantify IMO.
Wind farms are going up all around the world with no reported problems, although something could obviously go wrong, as could with nuclear fuel being transported by road, rail ship and the aftermath would be much more devastating than with oil.
Remember all the fuss over that little piece of Cesium isotope that got lost in the desert? Which would you rather clean up, an oil spill or a radiation spill?
The Coalitions current plan is nuclear, limit renewables, gas and coal but relies massively on gas.
That gas isn't currently available.
The current renewables plan although not highlighted relies on gas shorter duration but likely require greater capacity and will require similar planning as the Coalitions proposal.
Again the required gas isn't currently available.
Cost under the renewables plan at least 1/2 if not a 1/3 of the nuclear proposal with 100% better certainty of delivery subject to allowing engineers to design and not interfered with by politician's.
All plans depend on future improvements to technology to remove the gas component.
Its beyond me how any politician no matter what side of politics cannot simply put this up.
The Cesium had nothing to do with nuclear power station, it was a tool.
Very true, but the 500MW turbine, is in a location that is easily accessed and would not require the same amount of servicing as the wind turbine as it isn't exposed to the elements as the wind turbine is.And if you service one steam turbine you take out 500MW that has to be replaced with something else for the duration of the maintenance.
If you service one wind turbine at a time you only take out 3MW at a time, much easier to replace.
Doesn't matter. It was radioactive, even if minutely so and so precautions had to be taken.
Nuclear reactors have to be fuelled and de-fuelled using much more dangerous substances and transported to and from storage facilities.
You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms by alluding to a minor aspect of maintenance which is ridiculous.
Very true, but the 500MW turbine, is in a location that is easily accessed and would not require the same amount of servicing as the wind turbine as it isn't exposed to the elements as the wind turbine is.
Also as the steam turbine is an on call device its maintenance can be carried out during low seasonal demand periods, the wind turbines because of the pure number of them, would be an ongoing job, so I don't think it's easy to compare them and also I'm of the opinion there is a benefit in employing both technologies, the more options available the better the outcome IMO.
Whether it be nuclear, hydrogen or concentrated salt storage, driven steam turbines, as long as it is emission free I don't care, but having at call generation with a lot of grunt is always beneficial in a power system.
It is a bit like having a contracting business that requires using a drill 24/7, I love battery drills, but if my income depended on me drilling 24/7 I would be using a mains connected drill whenever possible and a battery operated one wherever possible.
Similar to a fencing contractor, if you are doing a backyard a battery operated post hole digger would probably be brilliant, if you put in 100's of km of farm fencing, probably a tractor rear mounted job would be the go, horses for courses, but having both available would make sense.
"You insinuated nuclear reactors are safer than wind farms" Show me exactly where I said that!
The safety factor of nuclear waste transportation means spending large amounts of money to ensure it remains so. By comparison the maintenance costs of wind turbines are minimal.While you're at it, please list all the environmental disasters over the past decade in France caused by nuclear power station waste being transported and stored.
You are touting nuclear but you bring up little maintenance issues regarding wind turbines, but say nothing about the costs and dangers of nuclear refuelling and storage so I asumes you think nuclear is safer.
The safety factor of nuclear waste transportation means spending large amounts of money to ensure it remains so. By comparison the maintenance costs of wind turbines are minimal.
One assumption deserves another.What do they say about assuming?
I have not made any assumptions, on the other hand you have.
Ok simple question, how much renewable generation and storage would be required, to replace fossil fuel currently?
Well we are getting the nuclear subs, so that blows that theory out of the water, so to speak.For Australia nuclear does have significant sovereign risk, we don't and cannot make the fuel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?