Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 02 Mar 2017, 15:52:00

Yes, Texas is second only to California in alternative energy. (Texas is #1 in Wind, California is #1 in solar PV.) But read this:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601221/texas-and-california-have-too-much-renewable-energy/

....and both Texas and California are embarrassed by Washington state, which uses hydropower for 60% of its total energy. Granted, the totals are lower than either large state, but 60% is an impressive number.

My power company PG&E buys alternative energy from Texas via a company called CALPINE. They also buy from me, because we have mandated net metering. But with taxes and fees I still owe a few bucks per month for electricity, and about $600 in natural gas every Winter.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 02 Mar 2017, 20:06:08

"...and both Texas and California are embarrassed by Washington state" Doesn't embarrass Texans at all. They built out the hydro for the same reason we built out our lignite burning plants: the cheapest way to go at the time. It sure as hell wasn't done to save the environment. That proof lies in the fact that Washington state is major supplier of fossil fuel products. Fossil fuel products made from oil shipped in from frac'd Bakken wells and from Alaska shipped by ships like the Exxon Valdez.

Nope, no embarrassment in Texas. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Thu 02 Mar 2017, 21:15:48

ROCKMAN,

You're just not giving Washington state credit.

Yes, the state produces products refined from fossil fuels; that's what all those world-class refineries are for in a state that produces no oil. And yes, some of the crude used is brought in from the Bakken by rail and barge--I don't know how much from Alaska these days, that's just my ignorance. But what you're missing is this:

Washington steals oil-sands crude and refines that as well! We tap TransMountain's pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby, near Vancouver (the pipeline that TM wants to double); the deed is done at Sumas.

Credit where credit is due, please.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 21:21:50

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 02 Mar 2017, 23:15:33

Syn - I figured that post would flush you from the bushes. LOL.

Alaska and Canada provided the majority of crude supply to Washington State refineries, at 58 and 21.5 percent respectively. From the latest numbers from the EIA it looks like 130 million bbls of oil per year is shipped from Alaska thru those pristine waters to Washington and 50 million bbls per year of the "dirtiest oil on the planet" arrives in the state from Canada.

Thank goodness the state has so much hydro. If it didn't it would consume some of those climate destroying fossil fuels instead of letting the rest of us do it.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 01:45:32

ROCKMAN,

"I figured that post would flush you from the bushes"

And I didn't want you to be disappointed.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 21:21:50

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 13:39:30

the problem with the idea that 'everyone should go off the grid' is everyone or at least the vast majority still want grid service when their home system is offline for any reason. The more people who depart the grid the less incentive the grid owners have to maintain a large stable system with excess capacity. At some point it tips over into the grid producers and distributors losing money by staying in business.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 14:03:58

Tanada wrote:the problem with the idea that 'everyone should go off the grid' is everyone or at least the vast majority still want grid service when their home system is offline for any reason. The more people who depart the grid the less incentive the grid owners have to maintain a large stable system with excess capacity. At some point it tips over into the grid producers and distributors losing money by staying in business.


Tanada, the grid only deserves to exist in areas where distributed alternative energies can't be gathered and used. The whole idea with NZE and NEP is to abandon the least efficient part of the grid, which is the last mile to the consumer. People would of course be free to live in a neighborhood served by the grid, in urban or select high-density suburban areas, or in multi-family dwellings. But having a single farm with a single transformer at the end of two miles of wires never made any sense. We should salvage the wire and the transformer, or let that single consumer pay the actual cost of his electrical service.

The "public utilities" scam should never have included the energy suppliers IMHO, as it has never made sense. Nobody should own their own water purification and sewage treatment, or build and maintain the public street adjacent to their property. But those that CAN generate power and heat without spewing carbon SHOULD do so, given our current solar/wind tech. We should then recycle all the grid materials, the copper and steel and transformers that serve such consumers - else we can never wean ourselves off FF's.

Maintenance is no longer an issue either. Lithium batteries require only monitoring and intelligent charging. Elon Musk does that for you - the Powerwall has a microprocessor charger, it "phones home" and Tesla manages and updates the charger firmware for you. Modern alternative energy systems are not DIY designs, and are not maintenance intensive.

As for who WANTS this sort of power, everybody should - as it frees them from monthly power charges, frees the atmosphere from carbon-spewing power plants, and will give gainful employment to many.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 14:31:48

No, I'm somebody planning an all-electric and very energy-efficient off-grid rural home. Nor am I advocating that we "pass a law", invade the ME and take their oil, or anything else dramatic.

The PassivHaus or even LEED Platinum would require 3kWh per day, not 30. The Lithium batteries in the Powerwall are not the same as in your cell phone, and are managed by an intelligent charger. They are warrantied for 10 years, and expected to last 20 years before replacement. Nor will they be $3500 each after the GigaFactory gets going, they are $3500 using imported Panasonic Lithium cells.

The power grid in it's present form is obsolete, as are our energy-hog residences. We need to quit sheltering people from bad decisions, such as buying Building Code compliant homes, which when you think about it, are the very worst lowest quality homes that can legally be sold. Then we need to require that every existing structure meet the energy consumption goal every 50 years, or be torn down.

But the most obsolete thing of all is those who believe things never change. The power grid was a good thing in 1930, but it's a bloated and very bad idea in 2017.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 17:10:02

It's not like cheap houses last forever. Here in trendy Silly Valley, homes get refurbed about every 16 years, and even in economically depressed Wisconsin, about every 27 years between remodels.

Frankly, we can't afford not to. Do you think those "bubble" homes you mention should be preserved, or bulldozed? Do you think anybody would even want to live in one when the rent is $500 per month and the heating bill is $2500 per month? Gas and grid electricity will eventually get expensive and never get cheap again - the NZE or NEP home will soon be the only kind a thinking person would even want. Think about living in your home without any HVAC you can afford, and no wood to burn either.

The newly constructed PassivHaus will cost 30% more to build than simple code compliance, and the energy bill will be 10% of the average if you make the effort to conserve. The Passivhaus standards for retrofits are a bit more lax, call it 15% of the energy budget of the average home. The proposal that every existing home comply with the energy consumption standard every 50 years is a modest one, that's about as long as cheap houses last anyway. A contractor should not be able to "flip" a property with cosmetic changes alone, he must bring it up to the then-current energy consumption standard or flatten the structure and start over.

We have serious problems to solve and we need to get serious about solving them. The biggest problem is that we consume too much energy. But if I build (or refurb) a 3000 square foot NZE or NEP home, and I'm completely off grid, I have met the standard, haven't I? I'm not taking power from the grid or the gas main, and I'm allowed to set my own thermostat and if I'm 95 years old and want it at 75 degrees in my 3000 sq ft home, I can do that. Also I don't want anyone telling me I "must" live in 300 sq ft or 500 sq ft - I will decide, and I will live where I want to live, and how I want to live. If YOU want to live in town and pay for the power grid, I'll not oppose you - as long as you also have a home that only consumes 10% to 15% of the energy we use today.

I told you that I believed that we could keep very similar lifestyles to what we have while consuming 15% of the energy we consume today. I meant that. The PO.com members are fixated on energy sources, when their attention should be focussed on energy conservation, even when that means that they have to bring their home into code compliance once every 50 years. It's not intrusive and it's not extreme, and it is necessary that infrastructure - even personal residences, get renewed for the sake of energy efficiency.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Free Wind Energy Just Went Public Domain World Wide - US

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 10:25:37

Stumbled over this old thread which was mistakenly merged into a completely different topic. tracked down a couple of the images originally attached that got lost in the software upgrades and posted them below for those interested. I will point out that eight years later I haven't seen a wind power revolution based on this, but I find it interesting how people reacted none the less.

It seems the original link that was left out of the first post is still active,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/21/722578/

Image

Image
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Free Wind Energy Just Went Public Domain World Wide - US

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 11:16:37

T - Yes indeed: theoretical solutions to our energy problem are always interesting. All the more so when they are actually built and their utility is proven in the real world. Like this effort:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 48576.html

"One of the world’s first commercial-scale, kite-driven power stations is set to be created near Stranraer in Scotland in what could be a major step towards finding the “magic solution” to humanity’s energy problems."

Interesting that the richest green energy advocate considers the project has a 90% chance of failing: "Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who is investing billions in green technology, has said he believes there is a 10 per cent chance that kite power is the “magic solution” to the world’s energy problems."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 09 Mar 2017, 21:14:57

Article on ocean based turbines from gcaptain.

http://gcaptain.com/wind-power-blows-th ... op-at-sea/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 10 Mar 2017, 12:18:35

Newfie - Yep, those cost factors in the link are interesting if correct;

"Across Europe, the price of building an offshore wind farm has fallen 46 percent in the last five years — 22 percent last year alone. Erecting turbines in the seabed now costs an average $126 for each megawatt-hour of capacity, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s below the $155 a megawatt-hour price for new nuclear developments in Europe and closing in on the $88 price tag on new coal plants, the London-based researcher estimates.".

Of course two important points: still a lot cheaper to build onshore...if you have the land. Of course we have plenty of suitable shore line in the US...just like there is around the North Sea. The problem remains NIMBYism. Except in Texas, of course. LOL.

Second they are comparing the offshore wind to building NEW sources from fossil fuels amd nukes. But if a country isn't expanding its electricity production capacity it's cheaper to maintain existing systems then replacing them. Again even though Texas had greatly expanded its wind power capapcity we haven't abandoned the fossil fuel sources...keeping them as backup and to handle the intermittency problem of wind and solar. That's a very different economic model the many countries face.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Mar 2017, 19:14:42

ROCKMAN wrote:Newfie - Yep, those cost factors in the link are interesting if correct;

"Across Europe, the price of building an offshore wind farm has fallen 46 percent in the last five years — 22 percent last year alone. Erecting turbines in the seabed now costs an average $126 for each megawatt-hour of capacity, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s below the $155 a megawatt-hour price for new nuclear developments in Europe and closing in on the $88 price tag on new coal plants, the London-based researcher estimates.".

Of course two important points: still a lot cheaper to build onshore...if you have the land. Of course we have plenty of suitable shore line in the US...just like there is around the North Sea. The problem remains NIMBYism. Except in Texas, of course. LOL.

Second they are comparing the offshore wind to building NEW sources from fossil fuels amd nukes. But if a country isn't expanding its electricity production capacity it's cheaper to maintain existing systems then replacing them. Again even though Texas had greatly expanded its wind power capapcity we haven't abandoned the fossil fuel sources...keeping them as backup and to handle the intermittency problem of wind and solar. That's a very different economic model the many countries face.

Yes the intermittentcy problem is what will place a limit on how much we can build out wind farms on shore and off. I expect we will have reliability problems that are insurmountable if we get above 25 percent wind and solar. One thing I think they ought to explore is tethering a tidal turbine to each offshore wind tower foundation. It would use the same collection cables and have predicable production outputs and make the whole offshore wind farm less iffy.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Simon_R » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 04:57:08

Where I work in the EU the country has 27% wind penetration (and rising).

We are moments from disaster constantly ;)

however, this is managed by adjusting the wholesale market structure and selling Reliability Contracts and Having a balancing market, where there is a will, there is a way.
Simon_R
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013, 09:28:06

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 11:32:56

vt - "I expect we will have reliability problems that are insurmountable if we get above 25 percent wind and solar." Well, there may be a practical limit but I'm not sure we can make an estimate of what that might be... least for Texas. That's the point I keep pushing about NOT needing commercial battery grid storage to deal with intermittency. So again: Texas has no problems when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shinning: we just burn more NG/lignite. In fact recently, thanks to mild winter weather, Texas significantly reduced the amount of fossil fuels (primarily coal) it was burning by leaning more on the alts. If I recall correctly coal sourced electricity dropped from its normal 30% or so to about 15%. And if we get hit next week with another Arctic vortex that spikes demand? We'll do as we did before: watch our wind power provide 40% of state wide demand. Interestingly it was wind power that helped us deal with a few days of an intermittency problem we had with NG fired plants: the cold snap knocked some off line. Had it not been for wind (which fortunately peaks thanks to the very high winds that come with the vortex) backing up the system Texas would have had blackouts. And now that solar is coming on strong we'll have it as a partial backup in the summer...for at least half of the cycle while the sun is shinning.

Lately I've come to the harsh conclusion that those areas of the country that say they are wailing for storage to solve their potential intermittency issue are full of sh*t. LOL. They are either liars or ignorant. Today every state has some energy source supplying electricity to its citizens. Which OBVIOUSLY means that if they had a significant alt energy system that went down for whatever reason (no wind/nightfall) all it would need to do is kick in the EXISTING fossil fuel burners. In fact, dealing with solar would be very easy since nightfall time is rather predictable for many folks. LOL. Often the "logic" offered is that due to intermittency the existing generation infrastructure can't be replaced without grid storage. That's obviously a false assumption: who says that existing infrastructure has to be replaced by the alts? Since the infrastructure is already in place it costs nothing except the daily operation expense. Which would be reduced by the electricity the alts bring to the game. IOW there's no need to wait for the "perfect solution".

In the case of areas with growth and increasing electricity demand, such as Texas, the cost of alt energy doesn't compete against the existing infrastructure economics (which usually wins) but against the cost of NEW infrastructure. Such as expensive (and GHG generating ff plants) and very expensive (and politically divisive) nuclear power.

In either case there's no need to wait for commercially viable grid storage. And if/when it is developed those regions with existing alt energy in place can immediately take advantage and not have to wait for their alt systems to be built out. At that point a state like Texas (which is continuously expanding it alt energy) could quickly reduce it GHG footprint from electricity generation significantly...maybe even to the point of being insignificant.

The Aussies need to look at Texas closely. The same dynamic should work as well for them (maybe even better) as it does here. But only if they change the regs to prevent the power generators from gaming the system. And that could be done by modeling the Texas EXCOT organization. Had a power generator in Texas had done what one did recently in Australia and caused a blackout/high utility bills it would have meant huge financial penalties and possibly jail time . We love saying "Don't mess with Texas". But what is very clear given it's our electricity czar: "Don't f*ck with EXCOT". LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 12:51:17

I expect a fossil fuel plant that only gets used at night or on calm days is a lot more expensive to run then one that runs 24/7 or daily at optimum capacity during peak use hours. Tell the staff sorry guys don't need you today, the wind is blowing West of the Pecos" :razz:
But before we get there we have a lot of alt energy to build out for that first twenty five percent and we should press forward on that as it is twenty five percent we don't have to waste fossil fuels on or pollute with.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 13:01:04

vtsnowedin wrote:I expect a fossil fuel plant that only gets used at night or on calm days is a lot more expensive to run then one that runs 24/7 or daily at optimum capacity during peak use hours. Tell the staff sorry guys don't need you today, the wind is blowing West of the Pecos" :razz:
But before we get there we have a lot of alt energy to build out for that first twenty five percent and we should press forward on that as it is twenty five percent we don't have to waste fossil fuels on or pollute with.


Not so much as you might think. The primary expense with coal is and has always been the cost of the fuel. The remaining expenses including the crushers, feeders, and even today's complex stack scrubbing machinery, are experienced due to mechanical wear and thus proportional to the hours of operation. Coal plants can go from cold to full steam pressure in less than one half hour, although a somewhat longer period is customary.

I hate coal, if the truth be known, and I don't believe that "clean coal" exists. But coal technology is over a century old and quite effective.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 16:29:52

KJ - "The primary expense with coal is and has always been the cost of the fuel." Not just coal: in 2016 while coal provided 9,200 thousand MWh in Texas NG provided 15,200 MWh. That year 4,700 thousand MWh came from nonhydo renewables...about 30% more then we were getting from our two nuclear plants. And that NG was costing $8/MMBtu on average during 2008 compared to prices in 2016 that averaged $2.50 MMBtu, the lowest annual average price since 1999. And according to Baker Hughes how many rigs did we have drilling for NG in Aug 2008: 1,600. And how many just 8 years later in Aug 2016: 81. And most of the rigs drilling for NG recently have targeted the shale reservoirs...wells with a documented high decline rate. So who would not expect NG to increase significantly in the future? Imaging how much daily operational costs would increase if there weren't wind/solar being substituted for NG.

Folks can put down wind and solar all the want. But it won't change the DOCUMENTED FACTS: Texas consumers have saved a lot of money thanks to our world class alts. And will save us a lot more in the future: remember Texas is, by a very wide margin, the largest electricity consuming state. And that consumption is projected to increase significantly in the decades ahead. Additionally Texas didn't have to wait (as many others continue to do) for economical grid storage to deal with intermittency...we used our existing (and already paid for) fossil fuel fired generation. Fossil fuels which have seen very low costs during our alt build out. Low costs that cannot persist indefinitely.

Folks should understand that due to our tremendous growth the state had no choice but to aggressively deal with our electricity capacity. Over the 5 years ending in 2015 the Texas economy grew in real terms by 22% at a compound annual growth rate of 4.1% per year. Real Texas GDP, at $1,475 billion in 2015, is at the highest level recorded to date. Real Texas per-capita GDP is 12.48% higher today than 5 years prior in 2010. In that time the population in Texas grew by 2,228,077 (8.83%) people.

Chicken and egg: the influx of folks to Texas looking for work (at one point a few years ago 75% of all new jobs in the US were created in Texas) demanded that the state expand our electricity capability. But that expansion, helped partially by our wind power, also provided the ability to attract new businesses. Such as two German heavy industry companies that relocated to south Texas to take advantage of our lower cost energy.

Which takes me back to a point made before: alt energy developed in Texas not for environmental concerns but for business necessities. Which is why it happened primarily with the support of private industry and our tax payers and not the federal govt...or Elon Musk. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Simon_R » Sat 11 Mar 2017, 16:48:13

Hi Kaiser

Cant stay, got cheese and wine, however, a CCGT when hot ramps at about 1mw per minute, with a 'pause' for the steamy bit.

I know of the tech. specs for only one coal plant and that is a six hour ramp.

tchuss

Simon
Simon_R
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013, 09:28:06

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests